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. 6,993 posts (8,992 including aliases). 4 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 9 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 6,993 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

So... Would say everything else in that book is AP-specific?


Snowblind wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:

It is a campaign trait for an AP though.

An alternative is a 1 level dip in Cryptic, Urban Ranger, or Investigator.

That doesn't change that it is published in a first party product. It tells you exactly how Paizo values the rogue iconic ability. A little less than a trait.

To be fair, overpowered traits are much more likely to slip through quality control if they are campaign traits.

What gets printed for a specific campaign isn't necessarily indicative of Paizo's general design principles.

Wasn't that trait reprinted in People of the Sand, making it a non-campaign specific trait anymore?


Sissyl wrote:
I can't look it up now, but there was one youtube video in which an American lady screamed her rage and fear about how the water was different nowadays. See, if you take a good look at water spreaders for peoples' lawns during sunny days... You will find RAINBOWS!!! Yeah, that's right, folks, water changed due to guvment interference, so it makes rainbows when the sun is out! The horror...

It's obvious that the government is pushing the gay mafia's agenda!


Entryhazard wrote:
ITT: people begging for martials with 7 Int being capable of advanced techniques.

This post has to be trolling... No one can be that wilfully dense... Right? Right???


1 person 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..."

Heh...


LazarX wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Can we simply accept that Charm Person is really f~&#ing poorly written?

There's nothing wrong with writing of the spell. If every mechanic had to be written in a way to protect it against folks trying to munchkin it beyond what it was meant to be, the rules would be unreadable and unusable.

Trying to expect Pathfinder to work without a rational, sane, and fair GM at the helm, is so far beyond reasonable, it's pure comedy.

A well-written rule would not require GM ruling just to understand how it works, therefore giving the GM more time to actually prepare and run a fun game session... And Charm Person is obviously not very clear, considering the number of threads on the subject we've had.

Not that I expect you to ever acknowledge the fact that Pathfinder is flawed... I've seen this behavior before. In fact... Are you ciretose with a different name?


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?


Aranna wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
That honestly wasn't even my point. I was saying just because Christianity didn't consider being black as sinful, what if other religions did? Should they be able to discriminate against black people under the guise of freedom of religion? Are you only allowed to discriminate against gays or are Christians the only ones allowed freedom of religion?
Of course you seem confused, Freedom of Religion means freedom of ALL religions. Fortunately for the poor legal system I know of no religion that counts your race as sinful. If an Islamic shop turned away a Christian customer for violating some Muslim tradition I would equally support them in doing so.

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...

Why should bigotry be treated any differently?

We can't cater to every religion when creating laws, nor ahould we have to do so. Instead, in order to keep everyone able to live peacefully, we apply universal rules and everyone, no matter their religion, has to obey. If your religion is in conflict with the law, then law should always win. There are too many different religions for things to be otherwise.


3 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?


2 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.


Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

:(

Sorry to hear that... We are going to miss you. Do try to join us again once you have a little more free time! :D


Power Attack -> Cornugon Smash -> Hurtful! Deal damage, Intimidate and hen deal more damage every round! It's a nice boost to mobility for melee combatants.

(Add Intimidating Prowess if ou really want to never fail an Intimidate check).


Tels wrote:
What's in the box? wrote:
HAHAHAHAHAHA! Deathbattle covered that one.
Deathbattle's coverage of it was also full of crap. If I recall correctly, the calculated his strength and speed as he existed after he went through training on King Kai's planet and then sent those numbers through the super saiyan formula. They didn't however, calculate him based off of Goku as he existed when he fought Majin Buu or even Cell or Frieza. God forbid they use the version from GT who was able to fight Uub to a draw without going Super Saiyan (and Uub was noted to be as powerful as Kid Buu was), so that means non-super saiyan Goku in GT was stronger than super saiyan Goku at the end of DBZ.

Indeed... No to mention that Superman is often shown to be severely hurt by nuclear explosions... While Goku can casually survive attacks that would explode a whole planet. I actually think Superman is a better character than Goku, but that match was incredibly biased.


In a perfect world, douchebags would be douchebags and we would shun them 'til they were forced to leave or stop being douchebags...

We don't live in that world, though, so this law would cause a lot of harm to innocent people. Say, a private hospital refusing o accept a gay/muslim/jewish/atheist/whatever client who needs immediate care.

It would also brew feelings of segregation and hatred, which would lead to even more harm. I'm generally in favor of keeping the government out people's life as much as possible... But in this case, this is taking that idea and twisting it into a tool for evil.

Sara Marie wrote:
Removed post and reply. It is not ok to advocate, even in jest, for violence against others.

Hmmm... Isn't the whole point of parody to point out how ridiculous something is, though?

Admittedly, I didn't read whatever post you deleted, so maybe it did cross the line.


thejeff wrote:
Yuugasa wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

Take it as you will, thejeff... But that study honestly doesn't seem very accurate or unbiased. I don't see how it could not be.

That's a real limitation of studies that rely on what people's impressions. If a scientist said to the participants something like "watch more porn, tell me if you notice any negative effects", how do you know it was an actual increase in negative behaviors rather than an increased in observed/imagined behavior? I doubt the scientists kept tables on the sex life of the participants.

We see this kind of (often unconscious) bias all the time.

It is kinda hard to judge a study without knowing much about it though.

Nah, it's easy. You just judge it by whether it gives the results you want.

If it doesn't, you rely on your gut feelings and anecdotes you've heard.
The study might well be flawed. Everything that doesn't even reach that standard certainly is.

Like I said... Take it as you will. If you think that's what I'm doing... Well... I don't really care.


Take it as you will, thejeff... But that study honestly doesn't seem very accurate or unbiased. I don't see how it could not be.

That's a real limitation of studies that rely on what people's impressions. If a scientist said to the participants something like "watch more porn, tell me if you notice any negative effects", how do you know it was an actual increase in negative behaviors rather than an increased in observed/imagined behavior? I doubt the scientists kept tables on the sex life of the participants.

We see this kind of (often unconscious) bias all the time.


BigDTBone wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

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.

I posted a peer-reviewed scientific paper that disagrees with you on this very topic in this very thread.

Do you have any thing to backup your claims or is it just a gut feeling?

Tell me... What do you think is more likely? That those people were (consciously or not) speaking what matches their spiritual beliefs and whatxthey thought the scientists wanted to hear... Or that they actually measured how much satisfaction they felt and how judgemental their partners were?


BigDTBone wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

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.

I posted a peer-reviewed scientific paper that disagrees with you on this very topic in this very thread.

Do you have any thing to backup your claims or is it just a gut feeling?

Tell me... What do you think is more likely? That those people were (consciously or not) speaking what matches their spiritual beliefs and whatxthey thought the scientists


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!


7 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.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I quite like the slayer. I think in some ways it's a better ranger than a ranger—lacking that flavor-specific nonsense rangers get saddled with like "huge racist" and "worships nature"—and a better rogue than a rogue. No, I'm not doing a dash-aside for that one. You know why.

Favored Enemy doesn't really have anything to do with racism. It's just a type of creature the Ranger studied, the same way a hunter will study his prey. It's not hatred, just effectiveness. I'd wpuldn't say they worship nature either... They are obviously attuned to it to a degree, but they don't worship it like Druids do. It's more about knowing the enviroment ans using it to survive and thrive in the wilds, and in a magical world, that includes the mystical aspects of nature as well (therefore, spells).


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.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Some Guy again wrote:
Some Guy again wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:

I like that it is can fight rogue-style, yet (unlike the rogue) inflict fairly good damage.

Why shouldn't it be allowed to participate with everyone else? Do you think it's too powerful? Too weak? It's hard to defend it against accusations no-one has made.

That's true, no one has made any accusations that I have seen, maybe it is the perfect martial killing class with no flaws
haha solid point

Uh... You do realize you're agreeing with yourself, right?

Anyway...

I don't love the class. But I like it.

It's a good mix of martial and skills. A solid class who can contribute meaningfully in a variety of ways without ever being overpowered. It has decent options both in and out of combat, but will never break the game like a caster can do...

As far as mundane classes go, Slayer is probably the best balanced one (assuming you aren't counting Barbarians as mundane). It doesn't have the awful weaknesses of Rogues or the extreme narrow-mindedness of Fighters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I dislike literally all of those changes. IMHO they cause more harm than good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
your quotes are off.

Yes, they were. Thanks for pointing it out. Fixed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
A healthy risk is one that, if the gamble fails, situation = status quo.

That's not a risk. A risk, by definition, includes the possibility of a negative consequence. If there is nothing to be lost, there is no risk.

A healthy risk is one where the possible gains outweigh the possible negatives. I believe instructing young people and making them feel comfortable talking about sex is a good thing. And a far more effective way to protect them from the possible negative consequences of sex than trying to pressure them into not having it.


True Grit... The remake with... uh... the big Lebowsky... is far more interesting than the original John Wayne movie.

I also like Rob Zombie's Friday the 13th better than the second movie of the original franchise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:

You know, there is a reality in between "had sex beforehand" and just sort of flying blind ("hope for the best", "without knowing", etc).

Sex and money are the two most common topics of conflict for couples. It's a good idea for a couple to discuss finances in detail before getting married (seriously, every premarital counseling curriculum will hit that topic). But they don't have to share a checking account before they can know if their financial habits are compatible.

In the same way, I agree with you that a couple should be making informed decisions about the role sex will play in their relationship. That does not automatically require that they need to actually have sex in order to become informed. They need to talk about it. Heck, even once they HAVE had sex, they need to talk about it. [ETA: For sexual activity to actually inform you in any meaningful way, it would need to be happening regularly (with lots of talking as well). But by that point, you're already committed to the relationship, so it's no longer a "preparing to make an informed choice" kind of thing.]

"Haven't had sex" does not automatically equate to "completely uninformed". In fact, if a couple can't communicate well enough to reach a point of deciding whether to commit, then frankly they can't communicate well enough to sustain a long-term relationship at all, regardless of how sexually-compatible they are. Also, if your relationship is such that discovering a sexual issue would be a deal-breaker (rather than something to work through together), then it's not a good life-partner relationship in the first place.

However, the very taboo that keeps sex as "marriage-only" thing also turns it into a thorny topic, which prevents meaningful conversation about the topic.

Finances aren't such a touchy subject. It requires math and equations to understand how it affects you and your partner. Sex is not so easily calculated.

In the real world, all attempts to stop people from having sex inevitably failled one way or another. Social pressure simply can't change a core aspect of human bodies.

If sex can only be had after marriage, then people will marry just to have sex. Or they will do it in secret and never talk about it for fear of being punished/ostracized for their deed... Which perpetuates the culture of ignorance and misinformation about sex, making it more dangerous and harmful, rather than safer and more enjoyable.

I don't see anything wrong with consenting adults having sex as often as they like however they like. Meaningful relationship or not... If they are happy being nothing more than "f#$% buddies", then so be it. If they want to have sex only after married, then so be it. If they want to never have sex or have lots of casual sex with complete strangers... So be it.

As long as it's between consenting adults, no one else shoudl care. It's not like they are harming anyone. Some of those lifestyles might be healthier or riskier... And bring more ore less happiness to each individual... But that's their choice. It should be an informed choice, rather than a mandate.

I simply don't see any real reason to impose restrictions on things that don't affect anyone else. Don't want to have causal sex? Don't. Don't want to wait? Don't.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

BTW, I don't think thread derails are necessarilly bad... They can be problematic if they are too hostile or toxic (but that goes for every conversation) or if they are interrupting or poisoning a different conversation... But I have no problem with derails such as this, where it's a natural evolution from a different subject and remains civil and polite.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the idea is also innately harmful because even a couple who sincerely believes in it and follows it completely informed might end up finding out they aren't sexually compatible, which might lead to an unhappy life for the couple. Obviously, sex isn't all that matters, but it's a big part of a couple's relationship...

The decision of whether they can or cannot live with their incompatibility should be an informed one. Hoping for the best and only finding out after you made an emotional and legal commitment is a dangerously foolish idea to say the least.

I'm not saying it's wrong to wait... It isn't. Everyone has the right of waiting for as long as they want... I'm just pointing out that making auch a huge commitment without knowing such an important part of the relationshio is rarely a good idea...


@tgtg

Sorry for the continued derail... I just want to make clear that there is no problem acting on your belief or even trying to convice others to follow them. It's forcing others to do it that I consider selfish and problematic.

Generally speaking, people should only be forced/forbidden to do something if they (not) doing it has verifiable consequences for others (e.g.: You can't punch people in the face because it affects them, but you can punch your own face as much as you want). Someone not agreeing with your faith has no impact on you or anyone else other than said someone.

And keep in mind that most religion-neutral policies (e.g.: You can't teach any religion's mythology as fact in public schools) exist specifically to preserve religious freedom. It makes sure you (and everyone else) doesn't have to follow a faith you don't believe in.


thegreenteagamer wrote:

And on a separate note - belief without action isn't truly belief at all. If you truly believe something, you will at least try to make your actions line up with it. You may fail, due to circumstances or lack of personal willpower, but you will try.

So, the idea of accepting belief without accepting action is kind of moot.

But we can't (and shouldn't) police each other's thoughts... Therefore, we can't punish each other for believing something (although we can judge them based on said beliefs). You can think whatever you want. As long as you don't act on said thoughts, you didn't harm anyone and therefore shouldn't be punished... At the moment where you do act, however, it affects other people and therefore, you can be punished for your actions (assuming your actions deserve punishment, of course).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@greenteagamer

There is a difference between believing you're correct and trying to impose your view on others... If you think your deity of choice doesn't want you to eat hamburgers, then don't eat hamburgers. You can even talk about it with others and try to convince them to not eat hamburgers either... Just don't try to forcefully forbid others from doing it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marco Polaris wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

I personally think all beliefs and behaviors can be criticized. Everyone has the right to believe whatever they want, but they shouldn't be free of criticism just because they slap a tag on it.

No one should be punished for their beliefs, (although they can and should be punished by their actions, which may have been motivated by a certain belief). But norhing should be free of crticism. No belief, opinion or behavior.

I've met many people who say that.

I've met very, very few people who truly believe it. Which is a shame.

There will always be those who are willing to impose their beliefs on othera and act as if their beliefs (and only theirs) should be free of criticism.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I personally think all beliefs and behaviors can be criticized. Everyone has the right to believe whatever they want, but they shouldn't be free of criticism just because they slap a tag on it.

No one should be punished for their beliefs, (although they can and should be punished by their actions, which may have been motivated by a certain belief). But norhing should be free of crticism. No belief, opinion or behavior.


As much as I admire Commander Badass... Time travel is still too much of a mess for me. Any story that includes it has to be extra-entertaining to compensate for the downfalls of that particular trope...


I wonder if the series writers are clever enough to write about time travel without turning the whole thing into a confusing mess with no consistent rules...

Time travel/manipulation is one of the most difficult things to include in a story... It's too easy to mess up and create plot holes and the (often deserved) sense that nothing has any consequence, since you can always go back in time and fix things up.

For those very reason, I end up hating most stories about time travel... There are only a few exceptions. Hopefully, this series will join them.


All I said is that there is no rule saying stuff is banned because its made with a setting in mind. Therefore, by RAW, those spells are available. You can argue that a GM would ban them... And I can just as well argue that a GM would allow them. But for you, somehow (either because you failed to understand my point or because you're being dishonest about it), that equals me saying my opinion is more valid than anyone else's.

You've literally misconstrued my point time and time again while keeping your arguments highly inconsistent, using RAW only when it benefits your argument and ignoring it whenever it doesn't... And sadly, I can't say I'm surprised...

But I bow out. I've seen display that kind of inconsistency, dishonesty and hypocrisy far too many times to believe there is any point in this discussion. As usual, you "win" the discussion by wearing down not the opponent's argument, but his interest in continuing the debate.

Enjoy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Ah, so are indeed saying your opinion is more valid then everyone else's. Which is wrong, so there we are.

Time to lock the thread, indeed!

==Aelryinth

I'm actually impressed by how you managed to somehow get that from anything I said...

Well... I'm not surprised. I wasn't expecting honest and consistent arguments.

Well, given your eyes wide shut, total lack of consistency, and self-contradictions, I'm not surprised. Honest and consistent arguments are going to look quite strange to you, as exemplified by your continuous construction of straw men to warp what they are actually saying.

You shouldn't be impressed. You should be honest, consistent, clear, and able to post that way. As it is, you're none of those, and you twist what others say and then restate it erroneously while assigning beliefs to others that they don't have with strawmen and blanket statements.

You really need to clean up your posts and reading comprehension. You seem unable to understand what people are actually saying, and when you post, your erratic wording or explanations is NOT helping your cause.

You, of all people, making those accusations about anyone else is actually pretty funny.


Aelryinth wrote:

Ah, so are indeed saying your opinion is more valid then everyone else's. Which is wrong, so there we are.

Time to lock the thread, indeed!

==Aelryinth

I'm actually impressed by how you managed to somehow get that from anything I said...

Well... I'm not surprised. I wasn't expecting honest and consistent arguments.


Aelryinth wrote:

Do you realize that you agreed with me while trying to argue that you didn't? Because I didn't deny that material could be used elsewhere, but you're STILL protesting that people may NOT use them? We just aren't assuming it is automatically FIAT, and the whole argument you're using seems to be based around the fact they ARE, and its bad/wrong/not fun/invalid to assume they aren't, and Ael is a meanie for saying otherwise.

I.e. we're arguing alternate-setting and alternate rule stuff is optional and may be included at the GM's pleasure.
You're trying to argue that alternate setting stuff is automatically fiat, and then drawing a line out of nowhere with alternate rules, somehow making a disconnect in that they are THE SAME THING.

Nope. All I'm arguing is that RAW, no spell is limited to any one setting. And if you're fiating them away, I'll fiat them back in.

Aelryinth wrote:
You also realize that you built another strawman declaring what my opinion is, again? (and it's wrong, of course.) STOP DOING THAT, thank you.

This is hilarious, coming from you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Cult of Ashiel... will you sacrifice stuff?

...As if he needed any more dead birds. ><'


Aelryinth wrote:
Just because you want to assume this material is included, does not mean it is, and that's the whole argument you are trying to shoot down. Your whole argument is "I think it should be automatically assumed as being there," other people are, "Like, No." and you're like, "Well, you're wrong." And then you went off chasing straw men.

Nope. I'm assuming that if you're using RAW, then we should stick to RAW. If we are using "commonly used rules", then your banning something is in no way more valid than my allowing it.

Aelryinth wrote:
You're basically trying to argue that people can't have opinions and exclude stuff, because you have a different opinion.

And you say I am the one using straw men?

Aelryinth wrote:
It's setting-specific material. OF COURSE some people are going to exclude it. JUst like they'll exclude FR and Oerth and Dark Sun and Green Ronin and tons of other material.

Or not. I know many GM who would say "OF COURSE I won't ban a feat/spell/whatever just because it's made with an specific setting in mind. There are no rules saying it isn't available anywhere else!"

You keep acting like your definition of what is avialable or not is more valid than mine... It isn't.

1 to 50 of 6,993 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.