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. 6,639 posts (8,313 including aliases). 4 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 9 aliases.


1 to 50 of 6,639 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:

Oh, actually, you guys should like this:

La Principessa was sad earlier today and needed me to cheer her up. So I grabbed some books off the shelf and started reading her poetry. You know what she liked? Marvell's "To His Coy Mistress". Hee hee!

Huh... Despite the best efforts of my highschool teachers, the only poetry I've ever learned was The Tyger, by William Blake... And only because of Wolverine comics...

Caineach wrote:
Arnwyn wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Alzrius wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Damn... What's the name of the anime where the girl uses paper to fight? I really liked that show, even though it was pretty short. The battle against the guy who inspired Son Goku is awesome! :D
Read Or Die.

Ah, yes! That was it! Thanks! (The sequel wasn't as fun, IMO).

I think I'm going to rewatch it while looking for something new...

*gasp*! I thought/think R.O.D the TV was one of the greatest series of all time. (I did also like the prequel.)
After how awesome the OVA was, the series was kind of a let down for me. It was cool, but in a different way.

Yeah... The series was okay... But the OVAs were awesome!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
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)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
SAMAS wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I really want to enjoy Lord Marksman and Vanadis, but the harem elements really detract from it. And DAMN those outfits look cold.

I watched a few episodes of that show (about half, actually... 5 or 6... Maybe 7? Not sure), because it was supposed to be about the protagonists winning battles with wits and good tactics... It isn't. They win battles with giant anime energy attacks... Pretty disappointing. :/

Fanservice is not as big a part of it as it is in many other animes, but it's there. I wouldn't mind if the show were truly about using good tactics and cunning... Sadly, it is not.

I wish we had more anime about cunning protagonists winning through wits and cunning...

Having seen the whole series, I'll dispute that. Even in that particular battle, said attacks were used for very specific situations(a really tough target and a really long shot(at another tough target) that were both only part of the overall battle.

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.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
I always thought the reason that Humans were supposed to be special was among other things our behavior isn't solely determined by our genes.
Perhaps we're not as special as we'd like to think.

Isn't it funny how we, humans, who obviously judge the world using human standards, tend to think of ourselves as being special or superior? :)

Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
The problem is when people try to assert that -- supposedly -- women are naturally 'more nurturing' therefore women should always be the caregivers for children in a marriage. Or women are naturally more team players than men are, and so should be middle managers but not CEOs. They're taking a statement about the average member of a group, which may or may not be true, and generalizing it to be true of every single member of that group. That's the real problem, in sexism, racism, and most other kinds of -ism.

Honestly, it doesn't really matter if women are more (or less) anything than men...

The idea is that everyone should be free to choose what they want to do with their lives. If more men choose to do X compared to women, while more women choose to do Y compared to men... That's their choice. It's not a problem (admittedly, some things require differential treatment. There is a reason why maternity leave is so much longer than paternity leave, or why sports competitions are divided by gender, but those are based on very obvious and very significant physical differences).

As long as we all have the same rights, duties and opportunities, what career/hobbies/whatever each person chooses is irrelevant.

TOZ wrote:
No Game No Life. :D

Already watched it. Pretty good.

But its conflict resolution is 50-50 battle of wits and deus ex machina. Some things are not "cunning" as much as they are "characters are so impossibly skilled that they might as well be cheating" (the battles against beastmen are pretty bad in that respect, IMO).

TriOmegaZero wrote:
I really want to enjoy Lord Marksman and Vanadis, but the harem elements really detract from it. And DAMN those outfits look cold.

I watched a few episodes of that show (about half, actually... 5 or 6... Maybe 7? Not sure), because it was supposed to be about the protagonists winning battles with wits and good tactics... It isn't. They win battles with giant anime energy attacks... Pretty disappointing. :/

Fanservice is not as big a part of it as it is in many other animes, but it's there. I wouldn't mind if the show were truly about using good tactics and cunning... Sadly, it is not.

I wish we had more anime about cunning protagonists winning through wits and cunning...

Alzrius wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Damn... What's the name of the anime where the girl uses paper to fight? I really liked that show, even though it was pretty short. The battle against the guy who inspired Son Goku is awesome! :D
Read Or Die.

Ah, yes! That was it! Thanks! (The sequel wasn't as fun, IMO).

I think I'm going to rewatch it while looking for something new...

Damn... What's the name of the anime where the girl uses paper to fight? I really liked that show, even though it was pretty short. The battle against the guy who inspired Son Goku is awesome! :D

Sissyl wrote:
It's impressive, really. Decade after decade, the call for censorship has gone out about the latest types of media. Decade after decade, would-be censors have researched the hell out of the area in search of the holy grail: evidence that society becomes worse in a measurable way with porn/swearing/D&D/dancing/rock music/whatever. And, decade after decade, they draw a blank. But the truly sad part is, despite this, there is never a shortage of people who buy into the completely unscientific argumentation anyway.

Sad, but true... And don't I know it?

Here are some of the things that I enjoyed growing up (and still enjoy to this day)

- Rock & Heavy Metal music
- Comics
- Cartoons and Anime
- Action/Adventure/Horror movies
- Video-games (especially fighting games and action games)
- Porn

Now guess how many of those were accused of turning youth into violent sexual degenerates who worship Satan or something...

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
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.

thejeff wrote:
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.

thejeff wrote:
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.

thejeff wrote:
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.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
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.

thejeff wrote:
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...

thejeff wrote:
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.

On a separate note...

Is Tokyo Ghoul Root A the first season of Tokyo Ghoul? that's the only I could find, but the "Root A" part made me think it could be a sequel or something.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
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).
I think that is because most of us were already complaining about it being a terrible story and horrible example of a relationship.

And that is a very valid criticism. I think Twilight is a terrible story in more than a few ways (I had to watch 2 of those movies in theater, I still cringe with pain when I see the way those characters act, especially the protagonists, who the audience is supposed to relate to -.-').

Now, if anyone told me Twilight is a bad movie because of its story and characters, not because the wolf guy dropped his shirt as soon as he was on camera.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.
2- If people have such low self-esteem that they feel bad because they see attractive persons in tv shows, they have far deeper problems that should be looked into. Should every media only portray average people that are not particularly attractive or competent at anything, just to make sure no one feels bad about themselves?
3- What is "in moderation"? Who decides what's a moderate amount? The people producing and watching the shows apparently think the current amount is good enough. Who are you to tell them otherwise? Why is your opinion worth more than theirs? Don't like fanservice (or any other aspect of any media), don't consume media that includes it. It's as simple as that.
4- If you think a cartoon showing overly-sexualized fictional characters is as bad as thinking less of people just because of their ethnicity or sexual preference, then you really need to lower your consumption of PC-Holier-Than-Thou Koolaid...

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).

Nope... They teased her almost transforming back to her non-Thor form in the last issue, but she got the hammer back before that could happen.

I feel bad for losing the Thor- God of Thunder series, though... That book was awesome!

The new Thor's book is pretty good... Although i'd have prefered if they had created a new character, or taken an existing female member of the nordic pantheon and made her more important (kinda like they did with Miss Marvel, now Captain Marvel, who became a more important character is last few years).

As it is, replacing Thor as the God of Thunder pretty much guarantees that she'll eventually be kicked aside so that male Thor can come back and wield Mjolnir again.

Also, I wish they'd bring Marrow back... In the classic form, where she had bone knives sticking out of her back because she couldn't control her powers very well... I think she's in Cable and The X-Force, but that book is pretty "meh". I don't even know if it's still running...

In the Spider-man universe, I don't like Silk, but the Spider-Gwen seems cool. And I'd love to see a return of the Spider-Girl comics.

For the X-men, I just hope they don't bring Jean Grey back again... She's the dullest character ever. Emma Frost is so much more interesting... She actually has a freaking personality!

phantom1592 wrote:
Same with Green lantern. I've seen a lot of calls for a 'reboot' of the movie... but I say Recast and keep going. We've seen him get the ring, lets move on to new original stories.

I can understand the GL one, though... The problem wasn't the actor. The whole movie was horrible.

IMO, they should just create GL2 and make ti a good movie. No need to reboot or recast. Just make a good movie.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well... In the end, all products cost just as much as people are willing to pay for it. That's why recognized brand names can charge twice as much for a product of same quality as from a lesser known brand.

LazarX wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
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?
You don't get it. It's not about you or what you love or hate. You're not the primary concern as you're reading comics already. It's about making them relevant to the younger generations.

You mean the younger generations who haven't grown tired of the stories because they haven't seen them yet?

Apparently, it's you who doesn't get it.

How exactly does replacing the character help newcomers? They are far more likely to want to read about the heroes that their parents and older brothers told them about than some random hero that holds no significance to anyone they know.

I remember I started reading comics because my brother had a bunch of them. I remember being so excited that about spider-man and the x-men that I bought comics with my next allowance, because I recognized the characters from the comics and the cartoons. I don't think I'd have bought them if the covers displayed completely different characters.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Obviously this is not RAI, and it certainly not something any sane GM would allow, but... Holy s@*&, is it amusing...

5 people marked this as a favorite.

LOL. The funny part is that this s~$* might actually work...

Did they really create a "class" that allows the user to cast any arcane spell but didn't bother to add the prerequisite of actually being able to cast spells?


thejeff wrote:

I think the competition from other forms of entertainment is what's hurting comic sales. I don't think ditching their still top characters is going to fix that.

If Superman and Captain America aren't relevant anymore, why have they just had blockbuster movies? Why are they still top selling comics?

Exactly. It's not that people are tired of Peter Parker or Bruce Wayne, it's just that current format of comics is becoming obsolete and that they have a lot of competition nowadays. For better of for worse, digital distribution is the future, and in the 60s they didn't have to compete with games, cartoons, movies and TV series... At least not to the extent that they do today.

I still buy print comics, but it's a dying format...

Free college education is a great idea... But in practice, it's really difficult to pull off satisfactorily. I'm not saying it can't be done, only that it's pretty difficult.

There are two countries I know... US and Brazil. I guess the majority of people here know how college education works in the US, so let me tell how public education works in Brazil, just to put things in perspective...

First off, here is the deal. What defines the quality of any educational institution is its students, not its professors. Proof of this is that many teachers and professors work in two or more educational institutions with widely varying degrees of quality.


In Brazil, most of the top colleges and universities are public. OTOH, basic education in public schools is really freaking bad.

Why? Well.. If you have the choice between getting free education and paid education, and both of them have the same quality, which one you'll pick? The free one, of course. That means most students will try to go for the public college, but those colleges simply can't host every student. So how to select which ones should be allowed to enroll?

A couple of extensive tests, of course. Testing students' knowledge in a variety of areas, which weigh differently depending on what course they're applying for. That means that the most apt students are the ones who get to go the best colleges. That's only fair, right?

Well... Kinda...

The best students are the ones who could afford better education, and possibly a preparatory course too. Not surprisingly, those are the students who come from wealthier families.

So, in practical terms, the students who get free college education are the ones who have more money. And the ones who lack the same wealth are forced to either not go to college or pick a paid one (and there are many private colleges and universities that are really good, but they are usually not cheap).

So, the real question is... How do we create free college education without

a- discriminating who can and who can't apply
b- losing quality of education.

Ideally, education would be so well funded that we'd have enough public schools to accept every student without suffering a decrease in quality (which is particularly difficult to achieve in large nations, like the US, and even more so in large 3rd world nations, like Brazil).

Sadly... I don't think that'll happen anytime soon... Education doesn't provide immediate visible results, it takes time. So it tends to be undervalued by the communities that need it the most...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

LazarX wrote:
Greylurker wrote:

Daimian is already back I gather, with super-powers on par with Superman apparently

So Batman is now raising a next-gen Superman

Superman raised by is that for a nightmare

There was a What IF in which Kal-El was raised by Bruce Wayne's parents.

It wasn't very good, though...

Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

Thanks. (It's my brother's place actually, my sister is staying here for the weekend).

We're waiting for pizza... And I'm kicking the collective asses of my brother, sister-in-law, sister and brother-in-law in Smash Bros. Heh.

Giving it a break for a while, so they stop staring knives at me. ^^

Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

Not really... Between Cube's characters and yours, you already have all the skills you need. A Rogue-ish character wouldn't really add anything.

Go on kicking asses without me. I'll eventually think of something. Not in the mood to create a new character right now...

Besides... In a few minutes I gotta go visit my sister at my brother's house. She's only in town for the weekend, and since I don't have a car, it might take a while to get there. -.-'

Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

Nah... I just don't want to make a character that is ineffective or too similar to an already existing character.

I'll probably think of something sooner or later...

Rogues have always been pretty bad... All that changes is how bad they are and how badly the game forces you to have one in the party. ><'

Can't comment on Princess Nine... Never watched it because I really don't like baseball. ><'

I loved the idea for Zero no Tsukaima... Although I was disappointed that they din't explore more of the world and instead chose to focus on the usual harem comedy... Which should be expected but it's still a let down. :(

I wanted them to explore more of the magic that binds mages to their familiars and the connection between Earth and the world where the show takes place.

(IIRC, they never explained how the Japanese soldier reached the other world).

Charlie Brooks wrote:

I'm a huge Hal Jordan fan, at least when it comes to his Silver Age depiction. There's something charming about a guy who wields the greatest weapon in the universe, is pure of heart and well-intentioned, but is still the dumbest idiot the world has ever seen.

My favorite Hal Jordan moments include when he gets jealous that Carol Ferris is in love with his alter ego (despite going out of his way to put the moves on her as Green Lantern) and when he accidentally creates a monster that nearly destroys Coast City as part of a lame-brained attempt to get out of a marriage proposal.

Well... I only read a few Silver Age comics... Not a big fan of them...

Kyle Reynolds is the best "main character GL", IMO... Although I think Guy Gardner is far more entertaining. John Stewart is pretty badass (although I'm biased here... I probably give John more credit than he's due because he was the GL in the old Justice League cartoon, and I freaking love that show! Almost as much as I love Batman TAS!).

thejeff wrote:

The problem with Damian is that he's a kid and his personality is all about that conflict between his mother's influence and his father's. He couldn't stay in that conflict indefinitely - he has to grow up and resolve it. It really was intense enough he couldn't even really wait to grow up to resolve it.

It's possible he could have become a good character in the long run, but it would have been a very different good character.

I see your point. But he could grow up, resolve that conflict and be his own person while still being influenced by both his parents. While Damian's inner conflict is very interesting by itself, seeing how that conflict affects him in the long run would be just as entertaining (after all, a big part of who we become is cause by our childhoods, even after we outgrow it).

Quite a few stories starring him didn't even mention Bruce or Talia. Damian had a real struggle to become a better person, not just because he wanted Bruce's approval, but because he eventually realized that was the right thing to do.

Damian is also the only Robin to be actively involved with a powerful criminal organization, giving him a rare insight and unique perspective on criminals and super-villains (Well... Jason was a petty criminal, but the character is annoying as hell). And because he was introduced to normal society relatively late in his life, he could see ordinary things in a very different light than most people.

It was fun seeing Damian discovering the world and becoming his own person, often without any direct intervention from his parents. His love for animals and decision to become a vegetarian, for example, weren't caused by his need of approval.

Tim is a great character... But it always felt like he always knew what he'd become. There was never a doubt that he'd be a great detective and whatnot. With Damian, there is a greater sense of adventure and discovery, IMO.

And Dick... Well... Dick is a bit too vanilla...

Sissyl wrote:

You know me so well, thejeff. Thank you for understanding. It's not quite the truth, however. Regarding how society should deal with different people having different needs, it is a complex issue whatever way you look at it. Thing is, BOTH views that "men should pay more for eating more food" and "you should pay the same since you're paying for a service" are quite defensible. Unless, of course, you take the approach that any different needs are the sole responsibility of the one with those needs. Hemophiliacs are an interesting case: The substances they require to survive are famously expensive, weighing in at millions per year. If you DO want the state to pay for that, you also have to decide on a point where it's not the state's business anymore, and further, you need a justification for the point chosen.

I am not quite as much of a Randian as some people here think I am. There are very legitimate areas the state should pay for, via taxes. I just find it strange that larger people get no sympathy from the liberal statists, when so many others do.

Hmmm... I think if something is necessary for someone to live, but too expensive for the citizen to be able to afford, the government should pay for it... Admittedly, this means some people will benefit more than what they pay for, but those people are generally the ones with the least economical power.

I don't mind paying (reasonable) taxes for public education, health care, etc, even if I don't use those services... IMO, helping those who can't afford basic needs helps society as a whole, especially when it comes to education.

That said I still think the government should stay out of the citizen's life as much as possible.

thejeff wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Randarak wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
He was. =) Sad thing was, Spider girl only got something like eight issues.
That's not correct. There was Spider-Girl that ran for 100 issues between 1998 and 2006 and then Amazing Spider-Girl run that went for something like 30 issues between 2006 and 2009.
Well, Sweden never got much of the Marvel lines. Anyway, it shows that it's quite possible to have Peter Parker retire.

If you cripple him. Which is always a possibility.

Or just have him massively out of character. Which is also a possibility. For awhile, retroactively, he'd retired and let his clone take over. Of course, I think that retroactively never really happened.

Eh... I could see an older Peter Parker (in his late 40s,, early 50s) giving up the mantle to a worthy successor but still helping the world in other ways. Peter's been shown to be a very competent scientist and mentor... And now, thanks to Doc Ock he has a pretty successful company too (although that'll probably be erased by Secret Wars -.-')

(BTW, Superior Spider-man was awesome! I really didn't expect to enjoy that storyline...)

thejeff wrote:
Randarak wrote:
I always wanted to hit Damian. With a chair. Arrogant little bastard.

He was, wasn't he.

The best times with Damian were when the facade cracked and you got to see the kid underneath.
The abused kid, desperate for his father's approval, with no clue about how to earn it. And Bruce with no clue about how to show it either.
Him finally bonding with Dick and even being willing to admit it. Almost.

I don't know if I'd say I liked Damian, but there was some really good stuff done with him and he played off the other characters very well.

I don't think he'd have worked well in the long run - he'd need to learn and grow up and I don't think he'd be as interesting that way. Worse if he didn't. Of course they're bringing him back, but I'm just going to pretend that's not real.

Well said. But I disagree that he can't work in the long run. Damian has a very strong personality, and his relationship with both Batman and Dick are very unique.

They made far worse characters last longer... Hal Jordan is the dullest of the dull, and he's still pretty popular, despite the fact that all other 3 human GLs are far more interesting than him.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Randarak wrote:
I always wanted to hit Damian. With a chair. Arrogant little bastard.

Oh, yeah... He started as a real a*$@~$+. One of the things that made him cool was seeing him grow into a more likable person. His character development was very well written.

Freehold DM wrote:

Let's get one thing straight.

Tim is the best Robin.

Or we could watch the teen titans go episode about the best Robin, which was hilarious.

Tim is my second favorite, and the only one before Damian who I remember thinking "This robin is really cool!" when I was a kid... But Damian still takes the cake.

Freehold DM wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Not compared to Batman is now a kid in a high tech batsuit, mentored by an aged Bruce Wayne. (That one's real - Batman Beyond. Not bad at times, but not actually Batman)

Batman Beyond was awesome! :O

Terry McGinnis is just as much Batman as Dick Greyson! :)

But not as much as Bruce Wayne.

True... Because one of the things that make Batman cool is his personality, which is very different from Dick's and Terry's (and that's great, we don't need a bunch of characters who act and behave the same).

And Damian is the best Robin ever!

WHOA....thems fightin words, buddy.

Which ones? The ones where I say that Damian is the best Robin ever?

Well, okay, then. i'm willing to fight for the TRUTH!

Sissyl wrote:
Doesn't seem like a problem to you guys that a significant part of the population has extra expenses simply to deal with the absolute basics. If there is a disparity, shouldn't this be compensated via taxes?

I'd rather we all had as few taxes as possible and everyone were able to pay for that stuff by themselves... But that's too unrealistic an expectation, so the government does have to provide free education, health care and other basic needs (sadly, the quality of public services varies quite widely from place to place).

If the only extra expenses someone has to afford is paying a bit more for bigger shoes or having to buy a second serving of fries, then that person is doing fine. The problem is when they can't afford to pay for food, potable water, electricity, health care, education, etc.

I don't mind paying more if I consume more. That's only fair. I just prefer to pay straight to the producer rather than paying the government, who then pays the producer.

Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10
Rynjin wrote:
Yes, but what lists cost what?

Well... My suggestion would be:

Full casters list: 5 buy in; 4 pts per level (total 85 pts - 71% of your total points)
Half-casters: 5 buy in; 2 pts per level (total 45 pts - 37.5% of your total points)
Pseudo-casters: 3 buy in; 1 pt per level (total 19]23 pts - 16~21% of your total points)

Maybe full-caster lists could have different costs for arcane and divine spell lists (e.g.: divine full casters costing 3 points per level or arcane casters having a higher buy in), but I think that'd be unnecessary and possibly unbalanced.

The ability to spontaneously cast Cure/Summon Nature Ally spells should probably be given freely to the appropriate spell lists, and maybe sold separately for 1 or 3 pts for those who want it.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
So bigger people should just suck it up and pay more for clothes, shoes, food, etc etc etc?

Extra x's DO cost extra $.

Trust me. I am not small norse wolf.

Yeah... And finding bigger shoes is a pain in the ass! Apparently the shoe industry somehow managed to miss the increase in average foot size in the last two decades or so... Well... At least in the US and Brazil.

Sissyl wrote:
So bigger people should just suck it up and pay more for clothes, shoes, food, etc etc etc?

Everyone should pay for what they buy.

If you ask a larger portion of food you pay more because the restaurant charges more for that amount of food, doesn't matter if you're large or small, nor does it matter if you eat your food or if you throw it away. If you buy a better computer, you pay more, doesn't matter what you do with it or how often you use it. If you pay for 1 month of cable TV, you pay the same price, no matter if you watch it 24/7 or if you never turn your TV on.

The price is based on the product/service being sold, not on who you are or how much you'll enjoy what you bought.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
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.

Sissyl wrote:
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.

Sissyl wrote:
Mackenzie Kavanaugh wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
If we're debating physiology and sex (yes, sex, not gender), then how much should women pay for their restaurant meals? Given they have a lower average weight than men and, again on average, eat less than men? Is it fair that they have to pay the same price as a man for a portion that they don't need as much of? Would it be fair that men should pay more for the same service than women (getting fed)?
Actually... the exact opposite was historically a genuine problem, where restaurants, knowing that there is an inherent variation in the size of steaks and other such food portions, would intentionally give the smaller portions to female patrons, while charging the same amount. I witnessed this happening countless times while growing up, and unlike my mother, refused to put up with it and would often complain, especially when it was clear that the portion I had received, for ordering the exact same meal as my father, brother, etc, was only 2/3 the size.
What would you consider a fair solution?

Having differently sized portions on the menu so that each patron can pick which one they want?

For individual meals, that's not a real issue... Assuming the restaurant is giving equally-sized meals to everyone, the price there is saying "you pay X money for Y amount of food. What you do with it is your problem", and the restaurant has no obligation to allow you to customize your order beyond what's on the menu. You could take a single bite, throw everything else on the dumpster and the restaurant would still be perfectly justified in charging you the same price for that portion of food. They did put the same effort and used the same amount of ingredients for your food after all (unless they are given differently sized meals, which is a different problem).

That said, it's a real problem for shared meals. Which is why I prefer to pay separately. I can eat a lot, so unless my friends insist on splitting the bill equally (usually done to save time or spare us the effort of calculating how much each one of us consumed), I'll calculate what I spent and pay that. This way no one has to pay for what I ate.

When we ask for large portions of stuff, I'll either ask one in separate for me, or share one with someone who eats about as much as I do. For parties and other gatherings where every one brings some food/drinks for the party, I try to always bring a little more than I consume.

Ultimate universe was pretty cool... Then , in a single storyline, they f##~ed everything up. -.-'

The Blob eating the Wasp... Seriously?! Who thought this was a good idea?

Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

I think it'd be better to separate the cost by spell lists, rather than spell level (since some lists are obviously better than others, so they costing the same is kinda weird... e.g.: having 4 levels of Hunter spells casting shouldn't cost the same a having 4 levels of Ranger spell casting).

Additionally, it should have a buy-in cost and a static cost per level of spell casting progression... e.g.: a Wizard costs 4 points buy in and then 4 points per level.. A Ranger costs 3 points buy in and 1 per level... A Bard costs 5 of buy in and 2 (or 3) per level.

This way it'd be easier to calculate and plan around for a couple reasons... 1- spending a fixate amount of points is easier to calculate than having to save/calculate a exponential increase. 2- It wouldn't matter if your game lasts 2 levels or 200 hundred. It'd still work. Right now full casting kinda breaks if you go past 20th level... And because you have to save those points, you can't buy cool class features, which kinda defeats the purpose of FFCS, in fact, sometimes you can't even buy your basic class features without delaying your spell progression (like Clerics).

I think that would make things simpler and keep the total price pretty close to what the current one.

You know... Back to the Marvel Universe ending thing... I wonder what (if anything) will actually change, other than a few characters from parallel dimensions being incorporated by the main universe...

I don't like the idea of resurrecting Gwen Stacy because she's one of the very few comic book characters to actually stay dead, and that is a huge part of spider-man's mythology... But I gotta admit, that spider-woman Gwen from whatever-dimension has a really freaking cool costume! I kinda want her to stay around just because that costume is so awesome! Haha.

thejeff wrote:
If you're taking up two seats and someone else doesn't have room to sit, it doesn't take a hive mind to realize it.

If that were the only case seen in that picture, and it was labeled "people who take too much space in public transportation" rather than a term specifically coined to imply that only men are guilty of it, then I wouldn't have any problem with it.

But that's not the case... There are a bunch of pictures of guys who are too tall/fat/whatever to comfortably sit in a single seat (and I'm betting most of them would squeeze to give you space anyway if you bothered to say 'excuse, is this seat taken?").

There are pictures complaining about guys "manspreading" in a wagon that is mostly empty. And others where their legs are not even all that spread (there is a very obvious reason why men keep their legs apart when they sit). And others where the guy's fallen asleep... The subway isn't exactly the most comfortable place to sleep, so I'd guess most of those men are pretty tired.

I'm 6'4" and I barely fit in bus seats. The reason I don't cross legs or sit with knees together is because it hurts, not because I think other people (male or female) deserve less space than me. I see men taller than me all the time. I imagine it must be even worse for them. I try to not take a lot of space, but I'm sure at some point in time I was distracted and occupied more place than necessary without noticing... Apparently due to some innate sexism that I was unaware existed in me.

1 to 50 of 6,639 << 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.