|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
Having done a google search for Tera Elin, and given your past posting history describing said characters, your groups might be less judgemental and more creeped out...
Wonder Woman isn't really that hard to get right. The basics of her origin story are not anymore complicated than Thor's. Warner Brothers just is very very paranoid about doing any movies that doesn't involve Batman or Superman, and The Dark Knight aside, has has very poor luck with good scripts
Ya know...I am pretty sure guys will go and see female superheroes...I don't see that as being too huge an issue. The fact that Catwoman and Electra bombed has more to do with a crappy script and poor acting than anything else.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Guardians of the Galaxy is about as obscure as Captain Marvel, and Captain Marvel is probably the most significant woman with super powers. And Captain Marvel really isn't all that powerful compared to The Hulk or Thor.
Honestly, all bets are off once you introduce as a major character a raccoon with a machine gun.
Ya know, if I was a pagan that venerated Norse gods, I have to feel that the race of Heimdal would be way way less offensive to me than the fact they took dieties from my personal beliefs, simplified their story, and made them into super heroes.
If Black Heimdall is the only thing that offends your religious beliefs out of the Marvel movies, you probably have some underlying issues.
Except the comics books themselves seldom care about continuity...think about how many retcons, revamping, and resurrections are done by DC or Marvel? Obviously it's not a huge issue for them in their own products, yet the minor change in race is for a movie?
How about the actor selected has a working relationship with the director, and the director feels he would do a good job of playing Johnny Storm? And given the movie hasn't even filmed yet, its not like you can evaluate his acting or the influence of his race on the movie.
Also, if you really think that casting Nelson Mandela as a white person is the exact same as casting a black person as Johnny Storm, than you live in a much different reality than I do.
Antlered Serpents are a pretty huge motif in North American folklore, and generally share a few standard traits. They are almost always associated with water, whether it be lakes, oceans, or rivers. They have great magical power, and are generally on par with Thunderbirds and giants as far as magical powers. Many have healing abilities, especially associated with their horns. Generally they are legless, although this varies.
A sample of some different Native American dragons are listed below. Note that these are a pretty random sampling...I have yet to go through and concisely gather data on all the NA dragons and serpent like creatures, so I am missing a lot. But this at least gives give a sample. And some, like the Piasa and Tizheruk are probably weird enough they would best be considered their own monster. More examples are listed on the Native American Languages website:
Horned Serpents/Native American Dragons from my monster list:
Kci-Athussos = Maliseet/Passamaquoddy; lake dwelling great horned serpent; eats humans
Nahuelito = Argentinian lake serpent cryptid; large and serpent like, with characteristics of other "typical" lake monsters
Sisiutl = Pacific NW Native American; Great two-headed sea serpent with a human head and limbs in the center o fit's body, each head horned. may have been inspired by the rubber boa; can change size, from tiny to colossal; slime can cause sickness and death; gorgon like petrification powers; if killed can have great healing powers; natural enemy of Thunderbirds; guardian of the gods
Tizheruk/Pal Rai Yuk = Inuit; monstrous sea serpent, two 7ft long fox-like heads with horns, 6 fins, 2 dorsal fins, and two flippered tails; covered in thick fur and has a serrated fin down it’s back. Stealthy and fond of snatching people of of piers or overturning kayaks; can be summoned
Uktena/Uhcegila/Misi-kinepikw = NA Horned Serpent; giant serpent with glowing iridescent crystalline scales and a single large crystal horn in it's forehead, with magical powers. Also stag horns; pestilence breath; glow can blind and confuse people; enemies of the Thunderbird; not evil, but avoid humans and may be a death omen; can control game
Xiuhcoatl = Aztec turquoise fire serpent; segmented appearance with a upturned hognose snake like snout, trapeze like end of tail, covered in shredded paper like frills
Gaasyendietha = Seneca NA; River dwelling dragon like creature, capable of breathing fire and flying on a trail of fire; connected to meteors
Piasa = Cahokian; monstrous dragon, described as having a head like a bear, antlers of an elk, giant fangs, and a scaly body with bird like claws and wings; head and neck covered in a whispy mane; Tail tipped with a spear; antlers red and body black; destructive beast that preys on people, and would occasionally leave it’s Cliffside lair to terrorize the land
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Here's the thing. If the movie decides to deviate from the comics/books (which all movies do to some extent), the comic version you love doesn't disappear. Adaptations should stand on their own merits, and if the overall plot, characterization, and acting is good, who cares if it deviates in a trivial manner from the comics?
Actually the default state for Golarion (or at least the Inner Sea) is that homosexuality is treated as normal and generally not persecuted or the topic of much discussion. There are no examples of exile and numerous examples of same sex partners (cough "that is why reading a thread before commenting is useful" cough). Also You don't have to polymorph your sex to get married. There are two married same sex couples in the most recent AP, for instance.
If they are easy to spot, how about just ignoring them? If they are "trolls" than creating a thread to complain about them is pretty much feeding them, something you criticize others in doing.
I remember shortly after the announcement that there would be modules adding play style options from other versions of the game to 5E, but I never interpreted that as in "modules will all be released with or shortly after the core books".
I pretty much always interpreted that as several books, some of which probably would not appear until long after the game was released, given that higher priority will be given to getting a player's, DM' and Monster book out to have a at least bare bones version of the game ready for purchase.
For DnD to attract 100% of the 4E fans is basically impossible. No edition every released has managed that. Even Pathfinder had it's detractors who prefer 3.5, and that is a relatively minor tweak of 3.5.
Any of the core inner sea powers, since there has been a bit of a tendency to only produce campaign guides to the more "Theme Park" areas.
So Andoran, Cheliax, and Taldor
Beyond places, in the revisited line I would like to see some books focusing on abberations, dark lands dwellers, and sea monsters.
A Dragon Revisited 2, covering Imperial and Primal Dragons, would be nice.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Ya know...I have never really understood why someone would let the attitudes of anonymous posters on the internet determine how much money they spend on a game. If you had to play with them in real life, sure.
Personally I try not to spend much time in certain types of threads, as anything to do with Monk/rogue/fighter/martial-caster disparity is going to eventually generate a substantial amount of hostility.
On the other hand, if this is in regards to the Psionics thread, I should point out that you were about as equally hostile in posts as the people you were responding too. In a thread with a lot of Psionics fans, typing this:
Nathanael Love wrote:
I am saying don't use psionics. That guy at the end of the table with the gleam in his eye has it there for a reason, and it is not because its a balanced system, its because he has found something he wants to exploit.
Insulting those who like Psionics as munchkins only interested in the breaking the system is a great way to tick off all the other posters. JUST SAYING.
Rubber Ducky guy wrote:
...probably because New Zealand isn't an Australian state/province?
Based on what I have witnessed in bars, I have no problem seeing this happen if alcohol is involved...
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Probably because it reeks of condescension and to a lesser extent BadWrongfun?
Different tables have different play styles, and I doubt the play style Peter Stewart advocates is rare or uncommon. If anything it is considered the default for Pathfinder and 3.5, and obviously has been a successful model for both WoTC and Paizo.
Captain Sakhbet "The Sandman" wrote:
I am about 99.99% sure that Mythic is suppose to scratch the "epic level" niche, and that we will never see a dedicated epic level book for in the 3.0/3.5 sense of the word
Lord Snow wrote:
Well people have already stated it basically but I will chime in:
If creationists were happy to keep their believes to themselves, their family, and their church, than yeah, they would be harmless.
But the creationist movement in the states (not sure if you are in the the USA or not) is heavily involved in trying to get textbooks rewritten or dumbed down, as well as trying to push creationism into the curriculum as an equally valid scientific viewpoint on the formation of life.
This if allowed to spread and increase is only going to increase science illiteracy in our country, and produce generations of students who are not really capable of dealing with such new technologies such as gene therapy, etc.
Plus this is part of an entire parcel of poorly thought out faith-based education reforms, so it sort of goes hand in hand with ideas like abstinence-based sex ed, increased censorship of books with "harmful materials, etc.
Joe Shmoe 741 wrote:
I feel like at this point further debate is kind of pointless...as you are willing to discard just about anything we post, and play up or ignore contradictions to your argument.
Daemons and the horsemen still exist in the Great Beyond. Ergo some reason exists for why someone hasn't taken them over/wiped out, we just haven't had it spelled out in flashing neon letters yet.
I think it's not that difficult to design creatures with truly alien minds and world views...
The problem comes in when you have to have players who are human play them in a role playing game, and still have them act alien. That's an extra bit of hard work that I think most people would not enjoy pulling off for more than a game, if that
Other points to consider.
Lamashtu's greatest enemy isn't the Horsemen, it's Pazuzu, who is a single CR 30 demon Lord. She hasn't tried to snuff him out because it's just too difficult, and doing so would be costly and leave her vulnerable to attack.
If Lamashtu can't take out an enemy she hates in more friendly territory, why would she move against four powerful demigods?
As far as Demons in general go, they have only ever united once IIRC, when Desna popped into the Abyss and took out Aolar. Even then the alliance quickly fell apart. Demons just have trouble overcoming there backstabbing tendencies with other demon lords.
Secondly, at least some demons have loose alliances with daemons. For instance, as someone pointed out above, Thanatodaemons serve in Nocticula's capital city.
Finally, one point I have not mentioned, while there are no "diety" level daemons, they have leased out parts of Abaddon to gods such as Urgathoa and Zyphus, as well as Ahriman and his Divs. It's not clear why they have done this, but a reasonable guess would infer some sort of mutual protection. So really, you would not only be potentially facing down 4 united demigods, but at least two full dieties and another demigod.
Can't say I have much new to add, but whatever...
I would say you handled the situation correctly in regards to the response.
Personally though, I would not have used the black-blooded NPC after having denied that to the PC. The only exception would be if I explained after denying it that "This curse is rare and is going to be an important plot point in the campaign". If I disallowed it without the above caveat I would make note note to not use it, since yeah...I can see why the player might get angry.
On the other hand, I have shifted to being a fairly unrestricted DM, so in general I don't do many restrictions, and those that exist are usually either for power level or because they conflict too much with the campaign. PCs are sort of suppose to be special snowflakes in the grand scale of things.
Abyssal Lord wrote:
I dunno...If you like blank areas on the map, you can easily do that by just reinventing a nation/scrubbing it from existence in homebrew. If you want to see how Pathfinder treats Arcadia, or Casmaron, etc, it's you need a CS book.
I would rather have a surplus of information to pick and choose from, than not enough.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Oh I don't know about that. Perhaps the really vocal people in the rules/advice/etc forum, but I don't think you can take a sampling of people here on the forum as indicative of attitudes/beliefs in the entire community. Forum participation is going to self-select towards those people really into the game, which often includes those people with a really high knowledge of the rules and how they interact. A very large chunk of people who are more casual in their playing don't care, and probably have never noticed that Rogue is inferior to X.
I know the gods/demigods, including Deskari and the Empyreal Lords, can't directly go in and lay the smack down. But in the mass assassination scenario given above, I wonder if celestials are allowed to interfere. Some angels running interference could likely neutralize a lot would be teleporting demon assassins. For all we know, that explains a lot about what happened with the initial opening of the worldwound.
The shear number of mortal cultists and really low level demons involved in the Worldwound battles would seem to imply that maybe the demons themselves have to play there hands/claws carefully, less they escalate the conflict to a higher level that draws the wrath of dieties and powerful celestials.
I think you can still support mythic without necessarily publishing whole new player companions covering that material.
New mythic powers and feats/spells would be pretty easy to put into relevant player companions without too much issue. And it's pretty easy to include mythic monsters in bestiaries, which I hope they continue to do.
Annabel said wrote:
Biomedical science isn't an apolitical project, and I see no pitchforks in my speech. I was being critical of the speech of Todd and neuroscientists that reduce gender to a characteristic of the brain. What I saw was the construction of two new classes of trans people: the legitimized gender-neurotypified trans people and the deligitimized non-gender-neurotypified trans people. The former are those who have the "correct" brain configuration to legitimize their claim to trans status, and the latter do not. I want to avoid a future where genderqueer (and many unnamed "others") are marginalized because we found it politically expedient today to anchor gender in the brains of cis people and a handful of trans people with "correct" brain configurations.
Again we are left with the situation that if gender isn't a characteristic of architecture of the brain, where does it stem from?
I don't see identifying neural patterns evident in someone of typical female or male sex as necessarily discriminatory, anymore than I find figuring out the mechanisms that control melanin production to be discriminatory towards people of different racial backgrounds.
I also don't really see a future where people are going to use brain scan data to discriminate against people who identity as male but are female (or vice versa). This feels like it's less an argument against the validity of the science as it is in future use.
So where does gender come from in human beings, and what causes a male to identify with a female gender, and vice versa.
I am not sure if cartoons not being able to be analysed under gender conceptions based on physiology and neuroscience is any more reasonable criticism than saying evolution as a hypothesis fails because I can't plug mickey mouse into a cladistic analysis.
Todd Stewart wrote:
I agree with Todd...If there isn't a biological explanation or underpinning to gender/sexuality orientation, than you are left with it either being a supernatural explanation, such as a property of the soul (which really isn't what science is about), or a cultural/upbringing phenomena, which I feel is not accurate for most people, who state they were "born" that way.
"Age of consent" seems to be one of those issues that just doesn't need to come up in games most of the time. I think a lot of gamers would feel a bit icky if you were regularly coming across NPCs with twelve year old wives. I know I would.
Err...I only see one of those posts as using the term cis in a somewhat derogatory manner. But then I also think your problems have less to do with the term cis and how the poster presents his post.
A poster who might be construed as hostile can make any term look like slander. That doesn't mean it actually is a hate word.
See: every discussion here about optimization and roleplay
I also agree with Vivianne...your last post makes me question if you know what the term cis means...
Err...yes. Society in general has accepted certain terms as discriminatory. Words brought up in this thread. But plenty of other terms are not, and I have never heard "cis" used as an overall hate word.
Sure you can use "cis" as a derogatory term. There is plenty of precedent for that. That's why posts which use "gay" in a way other than referring to a homosexual person get deleted by the mods. I have also seen people use "Jew" as a hate term, but I am pretty sure the term isn't banned from public converse.
Some years back I was a frequent poster on another messageboard (on cryptozoology, not RPGS). I eventually left because they developed a very hands off moderation policy, and eventually a couple of charismatic (and rude) posters either drove off anyone with a different viewpoint, and those they they got banned by constant needling until the poster took it personally and broke the no vulgar language rule. By the time I left, there was never any discussion really, just lots of back slapping and making fun of people.
So yeah compared to what I saw over there, Paizo's moderation is a huge improvement.
Except how do you model those differences in stats? Certainly there would be no difference in things like wisdom, intelligence, and charisma. I suppose women might have better con (what with women on average living longer plus that whole child birth thing) and men better strength...but those are only general trends. There are plenty of men who are not very strong and plenty of women who have above average strength. I am sure there are plenty of guys that have high pain thresholds or live longer than average lives. So by reflecting hardcoding those sorts of male/female differences in the game, you are actually making it less realistic
Not a fan
NPC codex is nice because I can plop down any NPC in the book with no modification, and use as is. A book of NPCs where I can't do that isn't very useful.
I do want a NPC codex for monsters, but would rather have all the stats there (drow, goblins, etc.)
Since I have participated in a lot of threads that Jessica Price has been active on, I thought I would chime in.
Personally...I haven't been seeing a huge issue with her moderation. This might be very well be because I am biased toward liberal viewpoints. If there is lots of moderation in those threads, it's because they generally have a habit of getting nasty fast, as do any threads touching on real life politics. Even the language used is "controversial".
IN the most recent threads, people chimed in saying that they found terms such as privilege and cis inflammatory and offensive, which are generally things that I think are neutral at worst and used as describers of phenomena (and which the paizo staff obviously doesn't consider offensive). Maybe people reading the worst into those phrases and seeing people post about them is what is a significant contributor to views of "bias".
Furthermore, some people post views that they see nothing wrong with, see them banned, and then claim bias. I have seen multiple posts which tried to equate homosexuality with pedophilia/beastiality/etc, and the poster would have his comment removed and seriously be confused on what the problem was, and cry "BIAS". Fair moderation never meant saying anything you want, and believing something is true doesn't mean it's true or not offensive to a large chunk of Paizo messageboard users.
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
Yeah...neat take on kobolds.
Oh...the inbreeding problem? I wouldn't worry about it. There are lots of animals which actually do something similar. At least one mechanism I have read about is that there are differences in chemical cues/smell between individuals that are based on heredity. Organisms innately are not attractive to individuals which "smell" like them.
So..applied to kobolds, Kobolds for whatever reason just may not find certain kobolds attractive, because they smell/taste wrong. They probably have no idea why they taste/smell wrong, but it's sufficient to keep two sibling from knocking boots (or claws in this case). No magic necessary.
FYI, some of my reptilian races sort of work similarly...at least some species have no concept of "gender" and think it's weird and confusing, and are apt to consider a female human and a male human as entirely different species.