|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Wasn't that trait reprinted in People of the Sand, making it a non-campaign specific trait anymore?
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!
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?
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.
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?
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.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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
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.
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!
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).
Some Guy again wrote:
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.
Some Guy again 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.
Some Guy again wrote:
Uh... You do realize you're agreeing with yourself, right?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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).
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.
Marco Polaris wrote:
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.
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 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.
You, of all people, making those accusations about anyone else is actually pretty funny.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.