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

Lemmy's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 7,138 posts (9,390 including aliases). 4 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 9 aliases.

1 to 50 of 1,471 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Maggus wrote:
The vigilante is a great class in my eyes. Why? Because of the RP options you have. Wanna play Batman? Do it! Spider Man? Here you go! Zorro? Yes, sir!

What makes you think you can't roleplay these character concepts without using the vigilante?

Balance discussions and criticism is far more often started and continued by people who genuinelly want a class to be cool and balanced than by "minmaxers trying to 'win' the game".

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd just like to add that while I think every concept fits Pathfinder, that doesn't mean that every concept fits every campaign, even if the rules allow it.

That said, I dislike banning stuff, and whenever I do it, I almost exclusively do it for balance reasons. And I think banning stuff just because you don't like it is selfish and annoying. The GM will always have the final say, but he/she should at very f%%~ing least, consult their group before making big decisions about the game and setting.

Admittedly, players are always free to leave the game, but 'My way or the Highway" is an awful way to deal with your friends.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm sure it varies per region... But as a general rule, what are the laws of inheritance for when someone returns from the dead? I suppose the returnee usually retains his property... But what if he comes back after a long time (e.g.: 5 years... Or 10). What of he returns as an undead? I suppose unintelligent undead can't hold property... But what about intelligent ones who "live" in areas where undead are hated but not necessarilly illegal?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
I'd call ahead and talk to a manager first before booking your ticket. The Alamo is pretty firm on that policy. Having said that, they sometimes have specific showtimes for films where they don't completely darken the theatre and tone the sound down a bit specifically for the parents bringing little 'uns.

Thanks for the advice! Manager said earliest show on Tuesdays ONLY - no exceptions. Good to know!

(I'd dearly love to see Mad Max at the Alamo, but Mrs Gersen wants to see it, too.)

Is there anyone who can take care of your child for a few hours? Taking young children to theater is risky... It often ends with neither the parents nor the children having fun (much less the other patrons)...

I speak this as someone who often takes a bunch of younglings out (tutns out that being the only uncle who is single and with lits of free time makes you one of the parents' favorite baby-sitters).

I don't mean to discourage, I know how difficult it can be to go out when you have a kid, but if possible it's best to find someone nice and trustworthy to look after the children while you go out with the misses for an evening. :)

Eithet way, do find a way to watch the movie! I'm sure you'll enjoy it!

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ranger is actually more effective and versatile than Slayers... Spell alone give them a huge advantage.

There has never been any reason to play a Rogue... Even in the CRB the class was obsolete before you even got to it (Bard and Ranger come first). It is a horribly designed class and extremelly underpowered, Slayer or not...

Well, at least now we have the Unchaines Rogue, which is decent enough...

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ignoring the non-sensical science and time paradox (because really, they reached the point where it's so ridiculous it's not even worth bothering)... This was a great episode, with very emotional scenes and great acting...

I think everyone in this thread saw the episode already, but...

Just in case:

Why did they have to allow Thawne to go back to the future, anyway? What was stopping them from saying "Well, now that you taught us how to do it, we don't need your help anymore, so we'll just let you rot in a cell forever and ever...".

Also, I really loved seeing Jay Garrick's helmet and Thawne being apparently so scared by it that he wasn't willing to stay another second in the present time. I don't think it makes much sense (What, did JG decide to throw his helmet at a nearby wormhole or something?)... But it was still awesome!

And instead of dying, why the hell didn't Eddie simply have a vasectomy or, if he was feeling dramatic, shoot his own testicles?

As usual, the series has great character intereaction and development, and really stupid or nonsensical character decisions... So we take the bad with the good... Well, at least it didn't have any painfully frustrating action scenes this time.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Thread #987664209 that should be titles "Why I'll never play a Paladin with a GM I haven't personally known for years. Specially not in an online game.".

Now, back to the old routine of hiding all alignment/Paladin threads and moving on...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What happens if, say, a LE person is affected by a Helm of Opposite Alignment just before they die? Does Pharasma worry about deserved reward/punishment or is she more concerned about sending souls to the best fitting theme?

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Good Things: FoB upgrade, full Bab and proficiency with all Monk weapons... And if it took them more than 5 seconds to think of these changes, someone better sharpen their game-desogning edges...

Increase in mobility thanks to Flying Kick... Most other Style Strikes are "meh" at best...

Had they only changed that... The class would be ok. But no... Paizo's irrational fear of Monks strikes again! "A class with full BAB and all good saves?! Broken! How with Wizards compete? Better nerf their saves, remove their access to archetypes and tax their class features!"...


In the end... Unchained Monk is slightly better than old Monk... And still not as effective as a Barbarian or any spell-casting class in the game...

Best Monk is still the Qinggong Zen Archer.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:

Actually, I find the Unchained Barbarian got a lot of subtle but powerful nerfs, several of their best powers like Spell Sunder and Come and Get Me were redone in heavily downgraded versions, reduced damage with two-handed weapons, rage no longer boosting fortitude saves...

Plus I never really understood why it needed redoing at all. I mean, the only "problem" is that Paizo thinks adding four strength is complicated and confusing compared to adding +2 to melee hit and damage.

Admittedly rage adding temp HP change is nice, but from what I've seen that's the only thing that the barbarian gained by being "unchained." (Okay, there are a few new rage powers too, but that hardly requires a class rewrite).

I might be being pessimistic... But seeing the way Paizo handles Monks (and martial classes in general), I think the devs are just not comfortable with how effective Barbarians turned out to be after the APG, so they just used the "it's too complicated" as an excuse to nerf Barbarians and call it "Unchained".

I don't even understand the "Rage is too complicated". I'd never even heard of that being a problem prior to the announcement of PF Unchained... And there are a bajillion different effects that are just as complex, or even more so...

Hell! Wild Shape alone is far more "complicated" than Rage! And yet we didn't get a stealth-nerf "Unchained Druid". Or how about the Brawler's spontaneous feat-chain selection abilities? Or the Hunter's attribute bonuses who are permanent on the AC, but not on the Hunter himself... Unless the animal is dead, of course.

Unchained Barbarian is nothing but pointless. And possibly dishonest as well...

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Finally saw last episode... I'm not sure why they decided to have Barbara go evil, but I don't really care about the character so whatever...

I'm more pissed that they didn't give definite end to Fish. They made it look like she could come back, when all I wanted is for her to get a bullet in the head.

I'd also enjoy it more if penguin learned to keep his mouth shut instead of announcing his deeds to everyone he wronged every time... -.-'

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The problems with balancing casters by limiting their spells slots while giving them incredible cosmic power is that 1- They still have game-breaking abilities, 2- It's really boring for caster playera to stand around doing nothing.

It's very freaking difficult to make spells powerful enough to compensate only having a few of them without giving out so many spells per day that expenditure becomes a non-issue.

IMO, simply removing/revising the most troublesome spells (Simulacrum, Maze, etc) would make casters balanced enough... I'd also prefer that SoL spellz had more gradative effects based on your roll, rather than being the all-or-nothing b$&@*@*# they are.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I think Jason is great at designing cool and flavorful options... But I also think his views on game balance are... blurry... To say the least...

Here's the guy who said the Arcanist is perfectly balanced and then created an even more powerful 2nd version of the class... And yet, he is also the guy who designed the Unchained Monk and made it barely better than the old Monk (which is proven to be one of the weakest classes in the game)... And to make things worse, he had to be convinced to uprade an even weaker version of the class...

This kind of thing is why I have no faith in Paizo's ability or willingness to improve game balance. They sure do create fun and flavorful stuff... But when it comes to creating balanced stuff, they aren't very good at it... And they don't really care.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Seeing how horribly designed those Monk vows are, I don't see why it matter... Those things are character-crippingly awful.
You're not the first to say that about my monk builds (even though they always seem to rock our home games). Either everyone is overly critical of my monk builds, or monks are just plain bad, or I can't make a decent monk to save my life. Care to elaborate why you think that?

Did your example monks use any of the Monk Vows? (Vow of Silence, etc.)

Because otherwise, I think you misinterpreted Lemmy's post. I think he was talking about the monk vows themselves, not your builds. :)


Yeah... I know RD had already understood what I meant and even replied to Kalindlara's post... But how often do I get to say "Jackpot" around here? XD

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Seeing how horribly designed those Monk vows are, I don't see why it matter... Those things are character-crippingly awful.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
(e.g.: We know they would never kill Captain America, but it breaks immersion when he is barely inconvenienced by stuff that should kill him)
Proposition: Whedon put the infamous "Untron shooting Captain America" as a kind of temper tantrum because he was not allowed to kill any of the major characters.

Ah, you mean someone kept the hack from killing a puppy just because he wanted a cheap emotional shock Fromm the audience and doesn't know how to get one otherwise?

Yeah, no wonder he's pissy.

I'm pretty sure it's more of a case of "This battle looks cool! I don't care if it should've killed one of the characters, I'm keeping it!". It's far from being the only scene where realistic consequences were sacrificed in name of cool visuals... I don't generally care for realism, its just the inconsistency that botheree me a little (These characters have pretty well-established power levels, after all).

That said... It's never so much that it becomes a real issue...

Some really freaking stupid actions/ideas/plans by supposedly smart characters (most notably Tony Stark and Ultron) annoyed me a lot more... Those are the only major flaw I noticed in the movie... All other issues either went unnoticed or were small enough that they didn't bother me.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

For the same reason the Unchained Monk has a bad Will save...

Because Paizo is pretty bad at game balance and irrationally afraid of certain game options, even though they wouldn't break anything... Specially considering the shenanigans casters have been able to pull for years now.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lost In Limbo wrote:
That's of course assuming that for some reason for a big bulk job you've decided to roll every time instead of just taking 10.

Saying "I take 10" two hundred times isn't very entertaining either...

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Halfling Ronnie James Dio, no contest!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
It makes no sense. If the a good class is worth 10 points and the Monk is worth 5, why would you add 4 points and them remove other 3, making the final result barely any better than it was?

Because the whole is different than the sum of its parts, and that's always been one of the big problems with the monk class ever since 3.0, the monk looked good on paper (so many special abilities, such good defenses, etc) but just didn't come together in actual play, and, in particular, a class can have enough overall stuff to be balanced in its amount of abilities, but if too much is defense and it doesn't have something useful to contribute, then the rest doesn't matter.

Let's use the rogue as a case study. Upthread, people have stated that even if the normal rogue got all three strong saves (let's call it the save rogue), the Unchained rogue would still be better because the normal rogue is too wimpy, so surviving doesn't matter if you can't do anything in the first place. In that regard, people said upthread that they would prefer the Unchained rogue (with its only good Ref) to the save rogue. The rogue's issue in a fight was that it combined poor defense with offense that was situational at best.

In that vein, consider also a hypothetical class called "Turtle" that basically had the ability to turn all attacks against it into auto-misses and auto-succeeded at all saves, but literally could do nothing except sit around on its turn. This class is terrible! It's probably the weakest class in the game. If we were trying to fix the turtle class, we would need to add some ability to do something, for sure. Let's give it effective offense commensurate to a combatant PC. But once we make the turtle useful at fighting, we definitely need to weaken those auto-win abilities I mentioned earlier, even though it was the weakest class in the game before we added the offense. Sometimes, something can be a bad sum of its parts while having enough parts, and be made into something really fun by rearranging, rather than adding.

However, that Turtle example is an extreme that doesn't really represent the Monk situation. Monks have always had good defense,s but they were never impregnable and certainly weren't anywhere close to "auto-win"... Even their saves suffered because of MADness. A rearranging might be enough if the Core Monk were just a little weaker than most classes... That wasn't the case.

You could have literally just given them Full BAB, proficiency with all Monk weapons, a little more mobility and maybe a simpler/better FoB (which, let's be honest, are all really freaking obvious changes that I've seen implemented by dozens of GMs) and the Monk still wouldn't be even close to OP.

The Monk nerfs were unnecessary and anti-thematic. Jason (or whoever did it) went overboard trying to "balance" the Unchained Monk. The nerfs hurt the class' theme and effectiveness and don't really improve game balance. Specially when some of the most glaring problems with the class went completely ignored.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
*cool stuff*

That's an enlightening lesson in history/linguistics... (Seriously. No sarcasm.) And to this fay we still use "Faith" as in "confidence" or "optimism" (e.g.: "I have faith my so will become a good person" doesn't necessarily mean belief without evidence). And as you mentioned "faithful" is still used to mean "loyal", rather than "religious".

Still, nowadays the word "faith" is very often used to mean "belief in a god/adherence to religion", because words gain, lose and change meaning all the time. And using this meaning, if a god showed up and actually proved his existence, it would no longer be a matter of faith or religion. It'd be a verifiable aspect of reality, and therefore, studied by science.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Envall wrote:
This might sound weird, but true belief is belief without any proof ever. God does not exist to be your boss, but to be the ideal for humans to follow.
I'm not sure I've ever seen a more naively Christian-centric statement on this board before.

To be fair, the very definition of faith (which is what I understand Envall means when he says "belief") is believing without evidence... The moment God shows up and proves his existence, he stops being religion and becomes science.

Anyway... I think the OP's question is pretty silly. Most of us don't believe in gnomes, dragons and vampires either... But we have no problem having them in our game world.

Atheism is not hatred of religion, it's merely not believing in the existence of any god(s).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Poor, poor horse...

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

That's right. And that means every other class has the same UMD utility as the fighter, except Cha is his dump stat.

Which means its not a fighter discussion point at all. It's just a skill discussion. Nothing to do with being a fighter has any interaction with UMD.


In fact, Fighters might very well be the worst class to use wands/scrolls with... Everyone else either has more skills, better return for Cha investment, spells of their own and/or a bonus to skill checks.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll save further comment for later, but reading this thread... I'm no longer excited about the Unchained Monk. It seems like it lost almost as much as it gained. Why the hell did they nerf their Will saves and make FoB more restrictive? And I don't really think Wis to hit is all that good... Wis to damage would be better.

I guess I'll just use the new spell list for Summoners and maybe the Unchained Rogue (I don't know much about it yet, but it can't be worse than the base class).

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
The calculator analogy has well and truly fallen apart at this point. Unless you find yourself downloading "advanced math packs" every time a new equation is published or something. =)

I do buy a better calculator instead of just a basic one. I'll also buy a new device if the one I currently own is incapable (or considerably worse) at performing certain functions that I want/need to perform on a regular basis... Luckily, we don't find a bunch of new math equations every year in engineering.

It's more akin to buying expansions for a game. Or add-ons to a program. Or upgrading your computer so that it's capable of running a new game it couldn't run before.

You may not find the product worth your money, that's okay... But calling a "crutch for the weak" or a "racket" is not only hyperbole, but insulting as well, both for the developers and the customers. It's no more of a crutch than any other piece of technology, its users are no weaker than you and it's not a racket because it delivers exactly what is promised, doesn't trick you int buying it and performs considerably better than other similar products.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

I use a PC for my sheets.

I don't have to pay to use my sheet though, and shell out double the price for each book (basically).

HeroLab is a pretty good racket.

As good a racket as a calculator...

HL is seriously better and faster than any free character sheet I've ever seen. And I saw lots of them.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think they are powerful... They cost 8 feats, after all. Any power they have is undermined by the huge cost. Most SLAs obtained are not even very good and there are many other feat choices that are more powerful... Even for classes with lots of bonus feats (and most of those classes have little to no use for Cha).

You have a point with the "multi-tailed Kitsunes should be rare", but I don't mind having one of my players be the rare one... Nor do I see any reason why they should be any rarer than, say, a dragon-blooded Kitsune. How rare they are is just a matter of preference.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Honestly... The only thing that stops me from using more 3pp stuff is that they don't usually have HeroLab support. :/
I actually stopped using herolab because of this... *chuckle*

I still buy 3pp material... But I don't use it as often because creating characters in HL is so freaking quick, simpel and practical that it becomes kinda addictive! Hahaha.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly... The only thing that stops me from using more 3pp stuff is that they don't usually have HeroLab support. :/

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Hayato Ken wrote:

Not a bad method actually!

But why is it named KISS?

It stands for "Keep It Simple, Stupid".

(And everyone knows Gene Simmons is a bard)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
(And pay the author, which we would do if we did that... which we don't.)

Wait... You don't pay authors?!

I knew Paizo staff only worked there because of the threat of being devoured by a T-Rex!


That explains why they nerfed Crane Wing; people kept escaping from the T-Rex so Paizo couldn't get any work done.

Holy s*@+!!! It all makes sense now!

Archnofiend! You're brilliant!

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:
(And pay the author, which we would do if we did that... which we don't.)

Wait... You don't pay authors?!

I knew Paizo staff only worked there because of the threat of being devoured by a T-Rex!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I keep seeing this "If you don't know about it, google it!" atitude, as if that were a good substitute for open dialogue...

Sure, no one has the obligation of explaining the finer points of non-binary sexuality... But then again, no one has the obligation to know about it either. And it seems to me that the ones who would benefit more from spreading a clear understanding of the picture are exactly the people who have an unusual gender identity.

Google can (and most certainly will) give a variety of different (often conflicting) explanations. If you want people to understand something, then you better be open to talk about it. You don't have to give your lifetime story or private details, but a clear and polite explanation goes a long way to bridge gaps of ignorance and misunderstanding.

I personally don't know much about gender-fluidity (is that even the correct term?), but if someone told me they are genderfluid and/or want to see more genderfluid characters in media, and I then asked "What's genderfluid?" and the person told me to "google it", I'd almost certainly roll my eyes ans forget about it... If it's not important enough for you, the interested party, to talk about it... Why should it be important enough for me to research it?

I'm all for mutual understanding, acceptance, equality and cooperation... But how can we achieve that if we're not willing to talk openly and honestly?

If you don't want to talk about it, that's your right... But don't expect others to understand anything you aren't willing to clarify. It's not their obligation.

And this goes for every possible topic, not just gender identity... If someone asked me what is RPG and I just told them to google it instead of taking the time to explain it to them, it'd be foolish and rather hipocritical of me to blame them for being misinformed or ignorant about the subject.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

You aren't "fixing" the Fighter by adding super long feat chains, are you?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shisumo wrote:
Not definitive, but cause for more hope than you seem to have at this point.

Hopefully they'll drop the "limited to one weapon' restriction, since it makes no sense and adds nothing to game balance or character flavor...

Well... Let's wait and see... I have a hard time having good expectations from Paizo erratas or anything ACG-related...

2 people marked this as a favorite.

"Look at me! I'm cynical and angsty! I don't care about anything! And I'll prove it by replying again and again and mentioning my cynism over and over! I'm so deep..."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bards are probably the most well-balanced class in the whole game!

It's nowhere near as powerful as full-caster that know what he's doing... Nor is it nearly as limited as most martial classes are.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
This is why I think you are overreacting to the Law. It is just a push back against all the protections being given to everything BUT religion. A LOT of people just want assurances religion isn't going to become the big legal target for anyone with an issue and this helps protect them. Religion is at least as deserving of protection as skin color is. All you out there waving flags saying a new wave of runaway discrimination is sweeping the land are ignoring many many facts to reach that conclusion. Look at the lists of states and communities where this is already law, is there any more discrimination than before? Nope. So since this REALLY isn't about stopping a new surge of discrimination what is this about? Maybe this is really about wanting religion torn down.

The fact that bigotry already exists and is sadly protected by law in some places is no justification for protecting it even more.

I still see no answer to my question. Only attempts to deflect it. Why is homophobia okay when so many other acts described in the bible are not?

If you really think Christians, of all people, are persecuted in the US and that criticism against obviously biggoted laws is an attempt to have "religion torn down", then, holy s~+#, you need a serious reality check!

And it'd be nice if your argument werr consistent with itself... Even assuming that Chriatians are an oppressed minority... How exactly does that justify discrimination against LGBT folk? That's like a gay man saying it's okay to be racist just because homophobia exists.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
And once again I ask... Why should this particular rule be allowed to go against the law? There are many examples of acts condoned by the bible that would not only be ilegal, but also considered hedious by any sane person in thos age...

Are you picking and choosing your Laws? This IS now the law in many areas. I suppose if one law is in conflict with another law it is up to the high courts to decide the issue. Although I can't imagine any judge taking racism seriously.

And yes there are many questionable rules from the now out of date part of the Bible that refers to ancient Jewish law. I don't seriously expect anyone to live by ancient Jewish customs... not even the Jews.

Please, don't be willfully obtuse... You know what I meant. Try actually answering my question instead.

In any case, let me rephrase it...

There are many hideous acts condoned by the bible that are deservedly considered criminal and/or abhorrent by modern society. Why should this one (bigotry) be protected by law in the name of "religious freedom" instead of condemned, as we do with all others? What is so special about hating LGBT people that justifies discriminating against them being legally allowed?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Aranna wrote:
littlehewy wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
littlehewy wrote:

It's been brought up numerous times, but why is it not okay to discriminate against someone of a different skin colour, but okay to do the same on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identification?

There's a problem with your question.

To a libertarian there is a difference between "Something is ok to do" and "something should be LEGAL to do". It is entirely possible that discrimination is seriously not ok, but that its still not as not ok as government intruding into how people conduct their business.

Let me then restate:

Why should it be illegal to discriminate against someone of a different skin colour, but legal to do the same on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identification?

The religious reasoning is obvious. Nowhere in the Bible does it say being black (or any other race) is being sinful against God. It does actually say that about Gays. I am not saying I agree with refusing gays service. But one of the core principles of the nation is freedom to practice your religion. All this law does is keep that ideal safe. It is a good law. Let public outrage work against the tiny few who would take advantage of the law to actually discriminate. I trust that good will win in the end.
You realize there are other religions than Christianity, right?

More importantly... Religion is not (or at least, it shouldn't be) a blanket get-out-of-jail-free card to justify going against the law. There are all sorts of rules in the bible that are illegal. You can't, for example, stone people because they were unfaithful to their husband/wife. You can't sell people into slavery. Not even those from other "tribes". You can't kill people because they worked on Sundays either...

So why is bigotry allowed to break the law?

And what comes next? Do we write a law allowing people to deny service to customers who wear clothes of mixed fabrics? What about customers who eat shrimp?

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Can we simply accept that Charm Person is really f@&@ing poorly written? There is no need for these mental gymnastics to pretend it's well designed. We know most GMs wouldn't allow the spell to be abused, no matter whar RAW says.

Personally, I simply rule that all the spell does is cause the target to see thd caster as a very close friend. There is no Cha check or anything. The target simply does whatever it'd be willing to do for a close friend.

Problem solved.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, pretty much everything bad has higher chance to happen to low-income people, since a higher income gives you more means to avoid the bad stuff.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

BTW, every piece of media influences people... But unless someone consumes it in excessive amounts (because anything in excess is harmful), blaming one or another type of media for an increase of negative behavior is foolish at best and dishonest at worse.

All my life I've seen people accuse one thing or another of causing violent or degenerare behavior... RPGs, Rock n' Roll, porn, movies, video games, comics, Harry Potter... None of those ever had anything solid to back up their claims... Millions of people enjoyed all of those and they didn't become any more violent or degenerate than people who didn't.

So, yeah... I simply don't buy the "porn leads to [random negative behavior]" argument. If anything leads to that it most certainly is ignorance, misinformation and poor socio-economical conditions.

anedocal tale:
I know it's just anedoctal evidence... But my teenager life was spent in Brazil. On my first job, I had more than a few coworkers who came from really poor backgrounds and dropped school really early, but even the teenagers among them usually joked about porn saying stuff like "Hah! Too bad those girls 'don't exist' IRL... Well at least that means I don't need a 3ft dick! LOL!". There was always a very clear understanding that what they saw onscreen is nothing like the real thing, nor is it supposed to be. I don't think any of them would say that hurt their self-esteem or confidence. They just enjoyed the fantasy-fulfilling media and then went on to live their life, completely conscious and indiferent to the fact that it doesn't match fiction... Even though they were the perfect example of people who are supposedly influenced by whatever media is being blamed for whatever behavior

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't see anything wrong with rape fantasies. Humans fantasize about all sorts of thing that we would hate to experience IRL. Just see how many people are excited about the idea of a zombie apocalypse. I doubt any significant number of them would actually enjoy losing their families and friends to undead cannibals... Hell! We're on a forum dedicated to a game of fantasizing about getting into all sorts of violent situations... which oftrn end with the mauling and death of player characters!

That's thr thing about fantasy... It's safe. We can imagine whatever we want and make it pleasing because it has no consequences. I had a girlfriend who enjoyed roleplaying rape... It was... odd, but harmless. We had a safe word, just in case it became too real, but it was never used. She actually complained I was too nice... I guess that's a good thing. :P

Anyway, my point is that fantasy exista specifically so that we can safely experience stuff we can't live through in our lives.There is nothing wrong woth fantasizing about whatever. People only need to be aware that real life doesn't match fantasy (and most people are) and there is nothing wrong with that.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Saying porn causes body image issues and sets unrealistic expectations about sex is like saying The Matrix sets unrealistic expectations for learning kung fu and makes young martial artists feel bad about themselves because they don't look like Hollywood stars and can't dodge bullets!

Just touching on this point.

I'm not disagreeing with your larger point, but mainstream pornography is part of a much larger set of societal influences that cause body image issues. It's not the main culprit - I'd not even say top five - but it's still a part of how society can influence body image.

I'm speaking only about U.S. culture, by the way; I know we have an international community here, and I don't want to speak for other parts of the world. :)

However, I don't think anyone over... I dunno... 14~15 years believes that sex is like porn (even those who never had it), in the same way that they know police work is not like they see it in Lethal Weapon movies. Most people can diferentiate reality from fiction.

And seriously... If someone has issues because fiction portrays attractive and competent characters, then that person has to grow up and learn how to deal with it, even if they will need help for that... Because what's the alternative? Have all fiction only portray characters who are completely average ot below that just so no one feels inadequate?

I've always known for a fact that I'll never be as attractive, competent, charming, smart or overall awesome as my favorite characters... Rather than make me feel bad, all that did was make me admire those characters more and do my best to be more like them in whatever aspects of life I admire in them.

Society too often decides to blame media for showing idealized characters instead of teaching people that it's okay to not be a hollywood superstar with super powers. The real solution is to educate young people, not to bash movies, games, porn or whatever for providing the escapism fantasy we want them to provide!

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Meme that grinds my gears...

"I played a completely different game with completely different rules decades ago... Therefore I'm better than you and my opinion about this game is worth more than yours!"

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I still find it funny how the "but it influences people!" crowd never seem to inude themselves in their claims... Nope. It's always everyone else who is too stupid to separate fantasy from reality. "Porn influences people negatively... Not me, because I'm Oh-So-Enlightned, but everyone else, because they are obviously not nearly as smart as my brilliant self!".

Can we stop assuming that people are stupid? They aren't. Most of them might be uncultured, but they aren't stupid. 99% of the world can (and does) tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

I'm so f$~#ing tired of this holier-than-thou atittude...Saying porn causes body image issues and sets unrealistic expectations about sex is like saying The Matrix sets unrealistic expectations for learning kung fu and makes young martial artists feel bad about themselves because they don't look like Hollywood stars and can't dodge bullets!

And if are going to mention Japan, let's remember that even though rape is a very common theme in Japanese pornography, it's one of the nations with the lowest number of actual occurences of the crime in the world.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Some Guy again wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Oh, brother... If you're worried about the Rogue being replaced, you're going to have a bad time with Pathfinder... That ship has sailed a looooong time ago.
Thanks but not helping

You see... The thing is... Fighter and Rogues are very limited and underpowered classes. My advice to you is... Stop using them as a standard to what any class should be capable of. Otherwise, you're condemned to think everything is overpowered.

Some Guy again wrote:
I do apologize I am heavily biased against the slayer because it is every martial players wet dream.

The Slayer is not even in the top 10 classes when it comes to power. Hell! It's not even in the top 3 martial classes! The Slayer is a Fighter/Rogue that works. That's it.

Barbarians, Bloodragers, Paladins and Rangers are considerably more effective! Swashbuckler and Brawler are up there too.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Some Guy again wrote:
Darkheyr wrote:

I'm more concerned about the rogue being too weak, and thus the Slayer replacing him completely, if I'm honest.

There's not much the Rogue can do others (especially the slayer) do not do better.

That's a huge deal for me too

Oh, brother... If you're worried about the Rogue being replaced, you're going to have a bad time with Pathfinder... That ship has sailed a looooong time ago.

1 to 50 of 1,471 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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