|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Useless? No... Of course, not. They are just really freaking bad!
But they can have their uses... In the same way that even commoners can be useful.
Honestly... I prefer to wait another 3~4 months for a cool/useful ability than get something that I'll never use (at least, not successfully) because of how awful it is.
I just stop them from using SLAs and that mimic spells with costly spell components (like Wish) and count the Simulacrum against WBL... Planar Binding is a bit more difficult to rule in a clear, balanced and consistent way, IMO.
Then again, my players don't usually try to abuse the rules because they know I'm willing and capable of doing the same... And no rule is more abusable than rule 0... >:)
(so even when men are oppressed by sexism, it's because of a sexist valuing of masculinity and devaluing of femininity).
See? This is the kind of statement that shows that tumblr feminism a joke.
"It's always misogyny. Even when it's not. Because Patriarchy."
Said statement is often followed or anticipated by stuff like "every man is sexist! Some of them just don't know it.", which, ironically enough, is an extremely sexist thing to say.
So the question is, what do you all think sexism is doing when it's not oppressing people in """"""""legitimate"""""""" ways? Like, even the rudest of you probably think that women should be able to vote and own property, etc., right? But what do you think people who blame rape victims, or think it's okay to abuse women, or hold strict views of gender roles ("women belong in the kitchen," etc.)--what do you think they're doing when they're not actively saying or doing obviously sexist things? Like they stop being sexist when they're on the train or just walking around? You don't think their views affect what they do on a daily basis, or what?
So, what is the point here? A rehash of the nonsensical (and sexist) argument that is "men sit with spread legs specifically because they feel they are superior to women and deserve more space because of their superiority"?
If you really want to go into 'their bigotry affect all their decisions", then let's add this:
"Probably affects their lives the same way misandry affects the lives of those who say every man is a potential rapist, that men accused of rape should be convicted without fair trial, that men are the only ones who act like jerks, that men are sexist because their shirt has pictures of sexy women, or because they like a game with a male protagonist, or because,*gasp* they enjoy seeing hot women in the media they consume, that men (and only men) always objectify members of a different gender, that men have an agenda to oppress women (aka: The Patriarchy (tm)) etc."
It's difficult to take a movement seriously that complains about things like "manspreading" and "manslamming" and then goes on to harass an innocent man because they don't like his shirt... Or when they say the authorities should ignore due process and always assume a man accused of rape is guilty.
Tumblr feminism is a joke. A irrational, hateful and bigoted joke.
Brox RedGloves wrote:
Wait... You mean someone took that article seriously?!
2% sounds suspiciously close to "the lowest number that is somewhat believable", as if to hand-wave it as a non-issue.
As a very smart lady put it, it's like society is overcompensating and replacing the old myth of the Lying Woman (every victim is lying) by a new myth, the Woman Who Never Lies (every accused is guilty).
But there is no way to be sure... Since there are no good researches on the subject. At least none that aren't biased one way or another...
We accept people's words because we don't have the time and/or resources to check everything. Or because we believe those people are trustworthy.
But when judging someone, a simple accusation is not evidence. It doesn't indicates anything to be true.
It might be considered evidence by the court, but at that point we are discussing semantics. It doesn't change the fact that a simple statement doesn't really indicate anything.
Statements are not evidence of a crime or an event. They are evidence that someone wants the authorities to put you on trial.
You say they want to game in their house because it has all the baby stuff there... Is it possible to keep some of the baby stuff in your house?
My sister visits me all the time, so I have a few things for her kids (a 8 years old boy and 1 yo girl) lying around... She brought some of those, while I bought others.
It doesn't require a lot of space because it only has to be enough stuff to entertain the kids for a few hours.
I think the idea is for him, like Alfred, to mellow a bit over time. Year One is still, what, 20 years or so after the events of this series.
Closer to 10 years, actually... Bruce became Batman in his early/mid 20s, and the kid in the show is at least 12... Although that really varies every time the story is told and specific ages are very rarely mentioned.
(And I agree with Hama. But we know it's gonna happen sooner or later)
Eh... They explain the tactics... Then show a few chess pieces, but never really show how they did it. Their tactics work because the narrator says they work... And because the protagonists are overpowered.
Nothing really clever about that.
1) I didn't say people were stupid or couldn't distinguish between fiction and reality. I said that fiction and the media influence people. Can you see the difference between those two things?
I can. And as I said, media does influence people... But not nearly as much as PC warriors want us to think.
2) There's also a difference between "presents attractive people" and "random panty flashes"
There really isn't. All that is changing is how much you want to see/show in a certain media.
I'm also amused that I just described one of the differences between anime fanservice and more traditional Western sexism seen in older comics and elsewhere is that the girls in anime are competent developed protagonists, not just subordinant to the male leads. But they still have to flash their panties. That they still have to do the fanservice is the point.
They don't have to do anything. The author has them do it because, guess what... The audience enjoys it, so if it's included, the author is likely to have a bigger audience.
It's not that because the author or viewer thinks they are better than women, it's there because the author knows that men like seeing hot women showing skin and adding more of the stuff your audience wants to see is good business practice. That's all.
Instead the good shows with interesting strong female characters keep interrupted with random irrelevant fanservice. Often it seems forced and completely out of character.
Sure, but that's a problem with a adding something where it doesn't fit, not a problem with fanservice itself (or with any other aspect of media). Anything can be bad for a show, if it's put somewhere it doesn't fit (and the opinion of where it fits varies quite a bit).
Fanservice can ruin a show for the same reason that the biography of Lincoln can ruin porn... Because it's not the right place for it.
I've heard it mentioned along with all the other reasons it's lousy.
There is nothing wrong with disliking it. You can dislike anything for whatever reason you see fit. I don't like shirtless wolf-dudes either, but I don't use that as an argument to say that Twilight is guilty of misandry.
1) These claims seem to get perilously close to saying that media or literary portrayals have no impact at all. That mass media has no effect on shaping culture or individuals. There's a lot of space between that and "violent video games don't turn people into murderers".
People are not stupid. Most people might be uncultured, but surprise, surprise... They. are. not. stupid. People can tell fiction from reality, at very least when it's presented in a highly over-the-top fashion like anime often does.
Does media influence people? Of course it does... But 99% of humanity is smart enough to differentiate fiction from reality. My 8-years-old nephew knows that violence is wrong, but he still loves seeing heroes kick the bad guys asses.
And yet, every time someone says something is bad influence on whoever, they never include themselves in the group being influenced, it's always "Well, I'm not affected by it, but all those stupid people are!". Funny how that works...
4)Fanservice (of the kind we're talking about) is sexist. It's an aspect of sexism. It's putting women's bodies on display draw male eyeballs. And money.
Sure, you're presenting attractive people to attract more viewers... So what? How the hell is that sexist?
It's seems pretty obvious that a show with a mostly male audience will include stuff that interests most male viewers (and, who knew, that includes attractive females), just like a show with a mostly female audience will include stuff that attract most female viewers (and that includes attractive males).
There is nothing wrong with having attractive characters. Absolutely nothing. You're not discriminating against anyone. You're simply providing what your viewers want. If they don't like it, they don't watch it.
It'd be sexist if every character of a certain gender was portrayed as incompetent, inferior or insignificant. That's often not the case. As Aranna herself said, the girls in Highschool of the Dead can hold their own and are pretty badass.
Personally, I'd say Naruto is far more sexist, simply because most female characters are all but completely insignificant, even the ones that are supposedly really powerful.
There was talk that fanservice make men see women as nothing but sex toys, that it has a subtle but real negative effect on young women and and that it should only be done "in moderation". There were comparisons between fanservice and racism and homophonia, FFS.
1- There is no evidence that fanservice (or even porn) makes anyone sexist. It's a claim as empty as saying that video-games and rock n' roll music make people violent.
And I doubt any of the people complaining about fanservice were protesting the amount of pointless shirtless scenes in Twilight (you know... that series of books/movies that made an incredible amount of money despite its terrible story and bland protagonist).
Why do we need to change old characters? If the new generation brings completely different characters, they are no longer the characters I love. If they have the same personality of their predecessors, what's the point of having a new generation?
It's not just a rehash of old stories. Every now and then we get truly great re-imaginings of the character and truly creative stories.
Besides, it's not a rehash if you're seeing/writing it for the first time, and not every reader/writer has been around since the golden age of comics.
I grew up loving the stories that star Peter Parker, Bruce Wayne and Kal-el (all of which I'd have never known if comics progressed in real time). If I stopped reading comics for a while and came back to find out all my favorite are dead/retired, I'd probably not even bother returning to comics.
Consider this: a restaurant's expenses for the customer are the costs for meat, veggies etc, salaries for the staff, energy and insurances, the location, ad campaigns, etc. Of all these, only the food costs more for a big eater. Should men then be forced to pay a significant markup for insurance, ad campaigns and so on?
Well... The amount of food is part of the service. So someone who eats more should pay more... Which is why restaurants should (and most of them do) have differently sized portions... With the bigger ones costing more.
Of course, the difference should only proportional to the difference in cost to to produce the extra amount of food.
Another way to view it is that the customer pays to get fed. Is it reasonable that someone bigger should pay more for the exact same service?
Not really... You're paying for service and goods. It doesn't really matter what you do with your food. If you decide to eat it all, give it to someone else, throw it in the dumpster, burn it or simply leave without eating it, you pay the same price, which is completely fair. If I sell you a computer, I don't care if you'll use it for work, gaming or as paper weight. The PC still costs the same.
Please. Unless it's just more of "this isn't really a feminist issue." Talking about a phenomenon that exemplifies the (most likely non-malicious in intent and unconscious) habit of many men to take up more space than women, to seemingly feel entitled to more space than women is an issue of gender equality. It's possible to address something like this while also caring about and addressing more severe gender inequalities. I'm not in the mood for straw-feminists.
What makes you think they are doing it because they feel entitled to more space than women?
Most likely, the majority of those people simply don't realize the space they are occupying or don't have much choice due to height and whatnot... And some of them are douches who don't care if they are inconveniencing others (male or female), but I doubt any of them is doing it specifically because they think women deserve less space.
Not every reprehensible behavior is caused by sexism, you know...
I've seen more men sitting with spread legs than women, due to very obvious reasons. But being inconsiderate to other passengers? That's pretty much the same all across the board... Turns out that s%*$ty people are born with all sorts of genitalia.
Still waiting on those 300 pages of women taking up too much space in transit that you promised me, BNW.
I don't think BNW has the same amount of free time as countless tumblr feminists who are determined to point every single disagreeable act in the world as a something that only men do...
I've been using subways all my life. I do it everyday. For every obnoxious man there is an equally obnoxious woman.
How specicist of you to assume the coyote doesn't have a ticket! Check your privilege, human!
(BTW isn't this kind of thing how we got wolves to evolve into dogs in the first place? Are we doing that again?)
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Is all this talk of banning in reference to my posts, or someone else's?
It wasn't a reply to anyone in particular, just my view on the subject. And the idea that something should be removed form media because it doesn't fit someone's personal tastes. You (general you) don't like a certain type of media? Don't consume it.
Don't like violent games? Don't play them.
But don't try to stop others from doing it if they want. And yes, censorship is exactly what some people are advocating here.
Remember when people accused D&D of causing youth to worship Satan and video-games of making kids violent? Remember when the same was said about rock music. Remember how people wanted to ban those things? Remember how all of that was b~*~@@#+?
If you think the former statement is b%%&%+~+, then why do you think anime is any more capable of making someone sexist? Why is it any more harmful than showing anyone who is attractive or competent. And why do you think banning anime with fan-service is any more reasonable than banning games with violence? Should we ban every game where there is combat? Should we ban porn as well?
If you don't like anime with fan-service, don't watch them. If you don't want your kids to watch them, then don't let them do it. Why do you want to ban stuff other people enjoy?
Let's see... Off the top of my head:
Better/Simpler Class Feature:
Real bonuses to iconic skills (instead of the awful "spend 1 Panache for 1d6 and hope you don't roll a 1 or 2" thing):
Other ideas were mentioned during the playtest. But most of the feedback was ignored. So we ended up with the Fighter-with-Weapon-Finesse class and the exercise in bad design that is Slashing Grace.
also (not sure who has access to it) but does the new everyman gaming stuff change anyones opinion on standard swash
Can't comment. I don't know what that is.
Nope. I don't see how requiring a minimal explanation about why I should stop doing something stops me from being a decent human being.
Sometimes it's fairly obvious why something bothers someone... Like smoking (you don't even have to be asthmatic) or the inclusion descriptive scenes of sex, gore or violence. These are easy to understand why someone wouldn't like.
But what if I have no idea what is bothering someone? If the GM says we open a door to a room where a vampire sits by the fire, with a viper on his shoulders and a dark wolf with red eyes and a glass of blood in his hand, and then someone shows me an X-card, how the hell am I supposed to know what is troubling that person? Is it the blood? The fire? The viper? The wolf? A combination of these? Should the GM throw the whole scene out?
I'm not saying the person has to give a detailed testimonial of what is bothering them and why it bothers them. A mere "This particular theme/image makes me uncomfortable, could we drop it?" would suffice.
I don't even care if the person is asthmatic or a rape survivor. If they say a theme makes them uncomfortable, I'll drop it. But they can at least do the courtesy of telling me what is making them feel uncomfortable instead of showing me a paper card and hoping I guess right. I can't read minds, and a big X drawn on a paper card doesn't help me know what the problem is.
(And why would anyone allergic to peanuts care if someone else eats peanut butter? Does the smell of peanuts cause some sort of allergic reaction? Honest question here. I never met anyone who is allergic to peanuts... Or at least, the subject never came up)
Doesn't have to give me a detailed explanation. But the other extreme, giving zero explanation is not good either. One can always simply say "this makes me feel uncomfortable".
You know what decent human beings do? Actually listen to what others have to say before implying they are horrible people who don't care about others.
No. But it's the only one I can affect. Having an X-card in my games would only affect my experience (and my group's). You can use if you want. I won't.
Do you know what will cause traumatic experiences in all of your friends? In any given stranger at a Pathfinder Society event or con? No? Here's a tool that helps those people out! And I'm having trouble finding any opposition to it that doesn't boil down to: "I don't really want to imagine a situation outside of my own, that sounds really inconvenient."
I don't know that. No one does. Which is why they should speak up if something bothers them. Like everyone does. They can use a silly card if they want, but I find it unnecessary.
I don't like the of having a "censor anything and everything you want with no explanation given" tool at the table. Nor do I think that raising a paper card is any easier or more effective than simply saying "this makes me feel uncomfortable". For one, speaking "Z makes me feel uncomfortable" tells me what is bothering them, instead of having me guess.
It's not about "not wanting to imagine a situation outside of my own". I don't have anything against people using whatever social devices they want in their games. I just don't think the X-card is a particularly good idea and wouldn't use it myself. That's all.
I don't like the idea of everyone being able to censor whatever they want with no explanation given.
I find the idea rather ridiculous. We're all grown ups (and most likely friends or family). If something is bothering you, just say it. Why do we need a card with a drawing in it? Why make communication less clear?
I'd actually laugh if someone used the X-card on themselves. If you think it's that bad, why did you say it in the first place?
No, my response is "Why the hell is this even a problem?". So far the answers I got are not very convincing. I have no obligation to agree with anyone.
I never told anyone to "be quiet", I merely said it's simply not something that I consider worth of being bothered by.
So please, stop trying to argue that the problem doesn't exist, because there are people on here saying "I have this problem". For you to say "no, that doesn't exist" is belittling and condescending.
Anyone can choose to be bothered by anything... What I'm pointing out is that some things are just not worth being bothered by. "Players planning their character build" definitely falls into that category for me. And I have every right to voice my opinion that the presented issue is not a real issue. If someone created a thread named "I'm sick of players wearing blue shirts!" I'd also point out that I don't think the color of someone else's shirt is a problem... Even if someone insisted that it is for whatever reason.
By the way, you do that with a lot of things quite consistently. Both in roleplaying topics and real life. When someone else points out an issue they have to deal with, your standard response is "it's not a problem for me, so you should stop talking about it".
Hah! Yeah, right...
For someone who claims to know my "standard response", you obviously haven't been paying attention. (Also, how the hell would you know what I do IRL? Are you stalking me? :P)
Just because I don't agree with someone doesn't mean I'm trying to keep them from talking. I don't remember any instance where I told anyone to shut up. At most, I replied multiple times explaining my arguments... You know... Like people to do in a discussion.
In fact, the simple fact that I'm bothering to reply means I'm not trying to silence anyone. Everyone is free to discuss whatever they want. Including myself, so when someone says something I disagree with, I have no problem voicing my disagreement, even when the disagreement is "X is a problem".
And my whole point is that planning a character build has zero impact on the player's ability and willingness to roleplay. Planning doesn't restrict anything, not even the character being planned, because the player can always change his mind.
There is really no reason to be upset about players planning their characters in advance.
I keep failing my will save... -.-'
1- This is Pathfinder, not 2e.2- Even if you have a college that teaches you the abilities and gives you a certificate, that only means that college teaches you a set of skills and that's it. Character still have no idea what class levels are (the same way none of us have any idea what our "character levels" are. We only know our skills and professions). At most, they are officially recognized by a title that happens to match the class' names.
I can agree to disagree, no problem, but you say this with such authority... Like it's a fact for every edition, for every situation. I don't even think it's a fact in Pathfinder, or they wouldn't keep pumping out new character class in darn-near every rule book they release...
The reason they keep pumping out classes is because classes sell. That's it. They sell because players want to see new mechanics, either because they want to fulfill a concept in a different way or because their concept can't be fulfilled well enough by the existing classes.
IMHO, restricting specific fluff to an specific class (or vice-versa) is, not only limiting unimaginative, but rather pointless.
IMO, characters know what they can do. They know their capabilities and whatnot, but they don't go to "Fighter College" or "Rogue School" a la OotS. When someone stabs you in the back, all that you (and the attacker) know, is that he has the ability to stab you in the back. He doesn't know if his a Rogue, a Slayer, Investigator or Vivisectionist.
That cashier could be a Rogue with ranks in Profession(cashier). Or a Fighter. Or a Wizard. Or whatever. No matter the class, as long as he's working as a cashier, he's a cashier. Your class tells what your abilities are, not your profession or personality.
Anyway... I'm pretty sure we already had this discussion... Let's just agree to disagree.
Railroading is bad because it removes the players' freedom of choice. Planning your character doesn't remove anyone's choice (even the guy doing the planning can always change his mind). It has zero effect on anyone else.
This is one of the dumbest complaints I've seen. There is no reason to be upset about players planning their character builds.
My view on fan-service is the same as on any other aspect of media.
If you don't like it, don't consume it. Don't try to forbid others of doing so, because that's a very slippery slope that leads into a dark place. Go ahead and buy/watch shows with no fan-service. Support those shows and encourage others to do the same, but don't try to get something banned just because you don't like it.
Fighting games don't make me violent. Metal music don't make me satanic. Why would fan-service (or even straight up porn) make me sexist?
I don't particularly care about fan-service in general... Doesn't bother me, doesn't attract me. Won't make me watch a bad show, nor will it stop me from watching a good show... But I don't care if people watch shows only for fan-service.
There is no "unnecessary" fan service any more than there is "unnecessary" action scenes, romances, dialogue, character, etc. How necessary it is is solely a matter of personal opinion. What one person sees as completely unnecessary might be the main attraction for someone else. So everyone should just consume the media that matches their preferences and let other do the same.
Besides, no one needs watch anime or consume any sort of media, so technically, all of it is unnecessary.
I haven't seen many animes lately... I kinda stopped because I couldn't find anything I enjoy...
I like action/comedy series, but I grew tired of the "16yo with some sort of dark power that he can't control" plot (Seriously! I feel like that particular trope is in 90% of all action animes now!) and I never cared for giant robots, so that makes my choices pretty limited. -.-'
Parasyte The Maxim is okay... But didn't really grab my attention, for some reason. 2 episodes in and I lost interest.
What would the penalty for using the babies as sling ammunition be?
Don't be silly, Sissyl! There would be no penalty! That's just nature working as intended!
James Risner wrote:
Well, that isn't the tone that comes from your last post... It sounds like you were condemning graystone for voicing a negative opinion.
Besides, discussions don't necessarily have to end with "let's agree to disagree, hold hands and sing kumbaya".
There is nothing wrong with disagreeing and criticizing rules and FAQs (or even opinions). If graystone (or anyone else) feels like criticizing Paizo or Pathfinder, they are allowed to do so. And this forum is a great place to do so. Here his opinions will be heard and criticized by fellow players, maybe even a dev...
Oh, I know that. My post wasn't meant to imply that I think you know a lot about the game (I don't).
I'm just not in the mood for yet another endless discussion... "Do devs know more about the game than players do" is too subjective to have any meaningful discussion... So why bother?
It's not wisdom... Just mere lack of patience and motivation...