I think Mr. Locke is purposefully ignoring the point that is trying to be made. Just as it is a homosexual's right to associate with whomever, it is the same for a heterosexual. Do I agree with the idea of "gays should die"? No. I don't know many who do, even if they think gay people are unequal or sinful.
The point he's making is he's saying that the "opposing viewpoint" is being declared as WRONG WRONG WRONG and everyone who says otherwise should be burned at the stake. While I don't know if this is true, having not read enough of Golarion's works...what if it doesn't float your boat? What if you're straight and don't like gays in THAT way?
Streets run both ways, generally. If he's right, then it IS intolerant. If he's wrong, then he's wrong. Simple. Also "I'm sorry you disagree" is an insult, not an apology, I hope you realize.
...g#%~&!mit I didn't want to get sucked back into this board. How'd it get unhidden for me?
Actually, I thought it was going to be about roleplaying a werewolf who has to tell his/her allies/friends about a "monthly problem" that has absolutely nothing to do with being a girl. And how he should go about doing that kind of scenario. Although, TBH that seems a little silly now.
Recently, there have been a number of threads on the Code of a Paladin on the Paizo boards. It has been rather surprising to me how many people appear to want to treat this Code as merely a mechanic of the class to justify the raw power of the Paladin. That isn't the point of the Paladin's Code of Conduct. It should not be merely a means to off-set those parts of the class that grant power. Abiding for a set of rules only to gain power is not what a Paladin is about; in fact, it is the antithesis of what a Paladin is.
The origin of the Paladin was based on the knights of Charlemagne, and on Sir Galahad from the Arthurian legends. Such beliefs are not suited for everyone: neither Arthur himself, nor Lancelot, nor any other of his Knights of the Round Table were Paladins. Because the path of a Paladin is a hard path to follow. It is an act of faith and belief that the Paladin must live, everyday, so that he is true to himself.
The Paladin's Code is (rather, that it should be) a guide for how they live their life. It is with good reason that Paladin's are restricted to a Lawful Good alignment. This is because the Paladin (above and beyond all other classes) is a character of staunch moral and ethical beliefs, who sacrifices his own freedom of actions (of choices) to uphold a higher sacred trust.
Paladins are not just fighters by another name; they are more than a knight in shining armor. They are (or should be) pious and virtuous, honorable and merciful, charitable and chivalrous. In all things. Acting in such a fashion should not be something a person who plays a Paladin should view as a restriction upon his actions, it is merely the way which a Paladin (the character) lives his life, because that is who and what he is. A Lawful Good man...
EDIT: Remembered an idea I had for a paladin once. It was a "practical" (read: pragmatic) paladin. His idea of a good battle plan involved himself being in the middle of the road the enemy army traveled on, and shouting a challenge to them. Meanwhile his allies were in the foliage waiting to ambush them while the morons tried to pick off the "lone, stupid knight-man". Divided forces = easier fight.
His reasoning? "Two things. One, I can heal myself and fight as well as anyone else. I'm perfect for drawing the bait. Two...if they really are dumb enough to think I'm alone, they almost deserve to be ambushed like this."
The fighter would like to take his iconic high level abilities back from the barbarian.
He would like to be able to Sunder Spells, Resist Magic, hit people who hit him, learn how to tumble, get DR as he levels instead of at level 19, be able to improve his will save automatically with class features, and have 4 skill points a level, thanks.
The Rogue's demand that skills not be eclipsed/replaced by magic means you would have to redefine what skills ARE. Skill Ranks should open up new capabilities, representing training and learning. Bonuses gained by other means should just represent speed and surety.
Spells that duplicate/eliminate gp production should be revised or fixed. Example, Fabricate should replace one day's skill check, allowing it to be done instantly, not instantly make a completed item requiring a hundred day's labor out of raw materials. It also should not allow you to make a potent masterwork item with one Rank in the appropriate skill and a +10 Competency item, i.e. you need 7 Ranks in profession (smith) before you can work mithral, 10 before you can work adamantine.
An item is required to be masterwork and have a crafting level = the spellcasting level needed to power it. Thus, if you want a +5 sword, you need a sword made by a smith with 15 Ranks in the skill, or it won't hold the enchantment. This makes legendary craftsman NECCESSARY to make legendary items, and magic won't sub for Ranks.
==Aelryinth
I like all of what you say here, but the bolded especially. I think I may make that a house rule.
But in such an instance, do you think that Fabricate could be made a lower-level spell as a result? I think it could, but that's me. Suddenly I'm imagining a blacksmith with a wizard level (or three) so he CAN cast Fabricate, making his life a bit easier and increasing income. "Yeah, going to magic college was worth every copper. I can get three days worth of work done in one!" EDIT: Would probably lower the amount of material worked with, too. 10 cubic feet of steel ingots could be made into quite a few swords; so maybe 1 or 2 cubic feet per casting?
I once banned Paladins from a world simply because the world in question didn't have a concept for it. I was aiming for a more gritty world in doing so (not that said world ever got made into a campaign anyways! :P).
On the whole, I understand the argument presented, but the topic name "Why ban a class for flavor?" seems to miss that there are other standards of "flavor" to consider. If you want to make raviolis, you don't add ice cream to the recipe. However, if you want a banana split as part of a 3-course meal, you would. If it doesn't fit the vision you have for your world, and there's no way to reconcile it, ban; if you can think of a way to make it fit, do. Ninja are assassins historically, correct? Ergo, call them "assassins". Samurai are "knights" (though Cavaliers fit the bill there, so whatever). Gunslingers might be "snipers". Heck, maybe paladins don't draw on Holy and Righteous power, but something unique to your world. Name them something cool related to that unique something. Maybe they're just replaced by Incarnates, if you want to update some 3.5 stuff. Maybe you want spell-less rangers, there's probably a couple hundred ideas of how to do that out there. Just run with ideas, think about their core concepts and who or what might share that concept.
Heck, maybe you're in a world where magic isn't advanced very far, but you have a psionics system. One that hasn't been printed yet, or at least in a while (rewrite an old system?). Lower the spell level maximum, and add your idea of Psychic Powers.
I guess I'm trying to get at the idea that nothing in the game is set in stone until you make it that way. This does include class flavors, as has been stated. Sorry if that seemed at all "rant"y.
If you really want to get stats for deities check out an older book called Primal Order. It is not specific to any game system but will give you an idea of what a deity can do. There are some conversion but the book predates 3.x much less pathfinder.
It does have a lot of useful stuff on deities and reasons for going through mortals. There are rules for creating deities including Joey the god of basket weaving. There is also a lot of stuff for deity vs. deity fights.
Basically what it comes down to is that a mortal can't stand up to a deity unless he is backed by another deity. But often what happens is the deities use mortals to weaken the other deities so there are rules for interactions between them.
I just want to thank MS. I found the book online and already love it. (I love books about rules for/playing deities for some reason.)
Well, I don't exactly agree with everything I've seen you say...
However, this topic - your entire rant - makes sense. It DOES seem rather lazy logic at best, at least in most instances.
One exception I take is the dragon. A dragon is known for its hoard, and is known to obsess over said hoard to the point of OCD, so I'd almost expect it to literally sit on that gold pile (which, actually, is pretty small if you account for volume!). It'd be like expecting Austin Powers not to make a pass at a lady or a corny joke at just about anyone. A marilith, though, is definitely going to arm itself.
- An extra soul: This was harvested from a stillborn before its personality fully formed; the child wants to experience life, and this is (at least according to the fey) the only way to do so, without reincarnation magic. It grants one person immunity to soul-binding-, death-, or possession-based effects.
- The hand of a lady: The hand is not physical, but sometime in the future the player will meet a lady of high stature who becomes smitten with him (as per charm person, but permanent unless purposefully broken by the character). A female PC version could exist as well. The hand brings in the dangers of politics but also the power of nobility, especially should they wed.
- A devil's blood: You gain the sorcerer's Infernal bloodline and all powers associated with it. These powers and their effects are based on the level of one of your favored classes (since only half-elves have multiples, the choice is easy for everyone else). You may use any bonus spells once per day as a spell-like ability, and can gain one bonus feat from the Infernal bloodline list. If the character already has the Infernal bloodline as a sorcerer, his effective sorcerer level doubles for the purposes of earning (EDIT: and improving) abilities.
Prices:
- A devil's soul: You give away the soul a devil has stolen or seduced from a mortal. This devil is well-connected (though not a Duke of Hell...yet...) and will hold this grudge against you until it is destroyed (EDIT: since this was not yours to give away). It will inevitably ruin your plans, and may send its cultists after you with a special gem that can use soul bind on you alone. Should this gem be touched by anyone not of the devil's cult, it goes back to him immediately.
- Power: You permanently lose 2 caster levels, though access to spells, hit dice, and the like do not change. In short, you count as 2 caster levels lower for purposes of spells you cast; a Wizard 7 does 5d6 with fireball. This may not be regained except with a wish, which has a 25% chance to make you lose your purchased item or boon. (Obviously only available for spellcasters.)
- Your time: During a single important fight in your life, you will vanish for 1d4+1 rounds. Should your allies win with no casualties (dropping to 0 or fewer hp or dying), this duration is extended to 1d4+1 minutes (minus the rounds in which you were gone). During this time, you recall having a pleasant afternoon tea with your prior benefactor, and being completely oblivious to the fight - as though it had been temporarily wiped from your memory.
It's official, I love this idea and this thread. Love love love.
EDIT again: New Something for Sale:
- A new location: Gain the effects of blur. This is extraordinary, but makes putting on your clothing and armor difficult.
I think the diviner ought to get the option to wake up, but not be forced one way or another. The Forewarned ability is sort of a spidey sense, which you can't really turn off. However, you can always choose to ignore the spidey sense if you wanted. Not having rested enough to regain spells or something might be a reason to not wake up.
I would then assume that getting up would be the move action you'd take in the surprise round.
Quote:
The Forewarned ability is sort of a spidey sense, which you can't really turn off.
Quote:
spidey sense
I am SO making a diviner with a cloak of arachnida. I'll ask the GM to make it a body suit. :P
Of course this all happened while I was either asleep or just not paying attention. :P
In response to all:
Wraith: It's actually been too long since I've played. It may well have been my group's playstyle...
I would never just make blanket rules. I always make rules with the group in mind. What might work for one group might not work for another. Maybe some rules were being ignored in the old group, or maybe you have a someone who really knew the game well playing with people that did not.
This is actually, exactly my point in my OP. I understand not everyone has caster problems; I wanted to see what happens if you do that for groups that DO have caster problems. Which your next post somewhat addresses.
wraithstrike wrote:
Machaeus wrote:
Marthian: I actually am not going entirely by the book in my archetype. It might just end up being another class entirely...sorry for the confusion.
Alitan: I can see this. However, a wizard can do a LOT of things other classes can do. Charm/Dominate, etc. I agree there is a "too far", and I am glad for your feedback.
..but it can't do its job, and the other class's job and not waste resources.
It also can do it as long or without other limitations.
As an example I had a player who chose a paladin because it can fight, cast spells, and heal. That sounds really good when you read it, but you still only get one action per turn, and the paladin is not the best at any of those except in certain circumstances.
Yeah wizards/sorc can charm/dominate, but at higher levels many monsters have high modifiers to save, they have to get past SR, and the monster might just be immune.
The bard can still use diplomacy or intimidate to achieve similar affects. Well skills can't dominate so with that spell he is not stepping on anyone's toes.
These are things I hear about in theory, but never see at a table. If someone tells me they happen at a table then usually the caster is allowed to waste resources and/or rest at will, but if you allow casters to rest at will it won't change anything. They can just max out the two casting scores, and be decent in con.
They don't really need dex since touch AC's are normally really low, even at high levels. The handy haversack takes care of them dumping strength.
20 pb
str 10
dex 10
con 14
2nd stat which controls how many spells you can cast 16(14 base+2 from racial modifier)
primary casting stat 16(controls which level of spells they can access + the DC )
10 or less for the dump stat.
These player might want thing more spells per day is important if he does not focus on SoD or SoS spells.
Actually, you can do both, depending on how well the player is playing the god-wizard. There are other limits, yes, but a wizard can, in fact, do some of the other class' jobs for them.
It's only a suggestion. If it doesn't work, and from your arguments it might not, oh well.
Marthian: I actually am not going entirely by the book in my archetype. It might just end up being another class entirely...sorry for the confusion.
Alitan: I can see this. However, a wizard can do a LOT of things other classes can do. Charm/Dominate, etc. I agree there is a "too far", and I am glad for your feedback.
Of course this all happened while I was either asleep or just not paying attention. :P
In response to all:
Wraith: It's actually been too long since I've played. It may well have been my group's playstyle...
Alitan: Fair enough. I hadn't really thought of those issues, but that's what I meant to get when I came here. Thank you.
Xavier: See Viktyr's comment.
Viktyr: Exactly my point, yes. I'm doubting it'll be enough, but it's something to try, maybe.
LazarX: Depends on the magic item. What if it's a pipe that you can use to create a smoky obscuring mist that consumes a dose of tobacco? (I made this, actually. Full-round to light, and move to make it smoky.) But I digress; you do raise good points, but I doubt that's the only major reason.
BEGS: The thing is, the fighter can't do that in one or two rounds. Three, hell yes, but two, probably not. Let's say he's level 10, fighting a CR 10 creature. We'll say an advanced Yrthak (Best 2, pg 290). He Vital Strikes his foe, rolls a +3 greatsword hit, Strength 26 after magic items and ability +s from levels, about 50 damage if he rolls 16 on his 2d6? Tell me if my math is off, of course. This means he'll have to use another 2 turns (unless he crits) to take it down, because an advanced Yrthak would have 138 hit points. If a wizard can end the encounter sooner on his own, that's a power discrepancy. Of course, the wizard can only do it so many times in a day, but that's not a terribly strong balance factor.
Granted, this IS a teamwork game. Assuming the rogue could sneak attack (easily possible with a deafness spell by cleric or wizard!), and the cleric hit with some kind of smite, that would probably end the encounter in a single round (if they were all 10th level). That of course assumes semi-perfect conditions.
There's a lot of factors, yes, but in a vacuum with just the rules the fighter isn't quite as badass as the wizard.
EDIT: BiggDawg: Probably, yes. Two stats of MAD is probably just right. Look at the monk, which has three (or four, depending on how much you value HP).
This was just an idea I had while working on a Pokemon Trainer archetype for Pathfinder's Summoner. And listening to the Pokemon Season 1 opening, repeatedly. (GOD I love that theme for some reason.)
While I was making the class, I realized it was the only "caster" class with MAD for its "casting" progression (I'm using the word "tactics"). This got me thinking: Would this sort of thing help out game balance? Say, a Wizard needs Intelligence to learn his spells, Wisdom to have extra spells per day, and Intelligence to enhance the DCs? Or some other combination therein. In short, have a single "dominant" casting score and a single "secondary" casting score; the former counts for two things, while the latter counts for one.
Has anyone else thought of trying this? While MAD is considered bad game design, a god-wizard or CoDzilla who has to put his good ability scores in two places to be a good caster could potentially give the fighting classes a great deal of breathing room.
If anyone thinks this is a good idea, where would you place the ability requirements? I'd like opinions on this idea.
NOTE: This is not official in any regard, and those of you whom have no problems with OP casters are not required to "call me out on my stupidity for nerfing the glass cannons". It's just an idea I had; I want the opinions of the people who DO have this trouble. I've noticed some tendencies of this myself, so I sometimes think of how to make this not such a problem. You are, of course, free to weigh in, but I'd like to see what everyone else thinks WITHOUT this thread turning into a flame war.
EDIT: For those who don't know, MAD is "Multiple Ability/Attribute Distribution". SAD is "Single Ability Distribution". I think there was another one, too, but I can't remember it...
Quite frankly, Mach... consider taking a vacation from these boards. Gamers Plus Internet Equals Vitriol. Whatever you think you need even if they agree.... it probably won't happen fast enough to do you the good a break from this place would.
Unfortunately, I get news involving new releases here. Even then...let's just say my brain hates me. And I think you missed the "weak-willed" part. Wisdom score is 1, I swear to God.
I also haven't found an "ignore" button...is that some breed of teasing/joking, or is there actually such a thing and my -5 Perception missed something vital AGAIN?
A serious question. Probably has been asked, but here goes.
I am a very weak-willed person, and I tend to read things on these boards that I shouldn't and get all upset over them. Mental disorders and chemical imbalances in the brain tend to do that.
My question is: Is there ANY chance you could ask the tech guy to add a button on the "Messageboards" section (right side of the opening screen) to "minimize" that panel, condense it and basically make it not so inviting to click around on? Or perhaps make an option in Account Preferences to purposefully remove that bar from the screen?
I'm just sick of seeing political spew threads, mostly, because the loud idiots I find make me sick to my stomach and to the point of wanting to become a lich so that I'm not f&$*ing human anymore.
My apologies for the vitriol, I'm not feeling well stomach-wise and just saw another stupid bait thread.
I had a great idea for a two-party campaign (one good and one evil) both pursuing the same list of artifacts over a long campaign and then at the end having the two parties face off.
It would alternate weeks, with the same people playing both groups, including in the final winner take all battle.
Couldn't get my group to buy in, but I think it could be great.
There are 3rd-party supplements galore for this sort of thing. I have a few of them for the sake of various options, pulling things from one for my own version.
If so, then I derp'd. I thought he meant spell levels. Like, at 1st level you have (as a Wizard) 1 + Int modifier spells/day, but at 9th level you could divide those spell levels up (say, if it's 20 Int you could have 1 + 4 5th-level spells).
Aaaaaaaand now I want to see what would happen if you did that. WTF brain.
You know...I've honestly never thought about this before...but I think the additional-0-level-spells will see its appearance as a house rule in my games. If nothing else I'll playtest it to see how well it balances out.
Unlimited times per day, but still pretty low-key effects, remember. Sure, it makes a huge difference in the short run, but not necessarily in the long run.
Of course, Sorcerers would still get shafted as-written. Maybe they can learn additional level 0 spells based on how many they'd cast in a day...I dunno. But I like the basic concept.
EDIT: @Mudfoot:
Wait, the casting STAT? That's...that's pretty overpowered. Unless you mean the casting MODIFIER.
You'd also think that if private jets are so bad that the Democrats and their supporters wouldn't have any. Fact is, they all suck. All of them.
They deserve to rot alive, IMHO, but since we can't inject them with Phyresis, we're stuck with them making our legal, tax, and healthcare system stink of decayed flesh. Literally in that last case.
165: Have a rolling boulder trap. Make the PCs require Constitution checks every 5 rounds or so to keep ahead. As you do this, play the Indiana Jones theme.
166: Have an underwater temple with a trapped room. The room is 7 feet high from the platforms to the ceiling, and 30 feet deep filled with water. In the room is a giant squid (hiding) and a platform smack-dab between the ways out of the room. Once you step onto the middle platform, water starts gushing in. The only way to remove water is by standing on a doorway platform; the water will only go back to 30 feet deep, and is slow to drain. The squid will suddenly become a major threat...along with drowning.
167: Cause it to hail, and have it deal 1d2-1 nonlethal damage each round. Should anyone ask why, shrug. If they examine the hail in any way, have them realize they're inexplicably getting teeth rained on them. Have it be a side effect of whatever foul ritual the bad guys are causing.
168: Have the campfire stop producing warmth during the night. When they wake up, the flames are blue and there's a stylized face in the flames. Have this flame be your quest-giver for the next few quests...then inexplicably, have the flames blood-red one time, with a dying body in the flames. Their patron.
Okay, I just shared Mikaze's protean speech with my mother...she thought it sounded very JarJar-ish (from Star Wars).
I think it actually explains a lot. JarJar is a protean petitioner. And he's only in the movies because George Lucas wishes to return us to the Primordial Times through propaganda for the proteans. Unfortunately, his plot failed, and that's why he's upset that people didn't like JarJar...it means they're not ready to accept his lords yet, and he takes that personally.
What do you know, Paizo, that we do not?! *points accusing finger at random staff member*
...Flurry of blows is more like THIS in my mind (starts at approx :40 seconds)...
Having not seen this movie yet, I can only say the following:
That was freaking awesome.
On the monk redo, I have no real opinion. Maybe I'm just out of it, but I don't really get what happened/changed...
Then again, I made a simple fix for the monk, and generally use that (because one of my common players thinks it's awesome). Would anyone be interested in seeing this in a separate thread, maybe pointing out some major flaws that likely exist?
Guilty of 69 and 5. 69 is my every day. And I've done the one that involves determining others' (and your own) class levels. I figure I'm a Monk 2/Fighter 1/Rogue 1 by now. (I'm a terrible multiclasser...)
86: You can remember the book, page number, name, school, levels, and other vital statistics of your favorite spell...but you can't remember what you had for lunch. Assuming you even HAD lunch. (God knows how many times I've skipped a meal for Minecraft or character building.)
Question, Arminas. If RD HADN'T retconned it, what would your opinion be?
And frankly, yes, it would have been on your head, because you were tasked with retrieving them. Also I implore you to read this. That right there is kinda what being a successful adventurer is about.
Thank you. And actually, I did modify that just a bit ago. It's now 80 per target, the missile number is increased, and the additional damage is up a bit. In addition, thank you for the advice on terminology. Really, it's a bit weaker than Wail of the Banshee, and that is AFTER my edit.
I honestly had this as more of a joke, but I think it WOULD be kinda cool to launch a spell like this at your enemies in game. Maybe a Will save to avoid being dazed by the sheer number? I dunno.
Sure, it's mostly useless against only one foe, but in the spirit of the Touhou games...most of those bullets you see aren't going to be heading towards you. They just cut off all your avenues of escape.
Bullet Hell
School evocation [force]; Level sorcerer/wizard 9
Casting time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Targets up to one creature per missile
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yes
Bullet hell creates a number of small, glowing bullets of force equal to 20 times your caster level. Each bullet then shoots out for a single foe, doing a single point of force damage before dissipating. Every 10 bullets that strike a single creature deals an additional 1d6+5 force damage No more than 80 bullets may strike a single target per casting of this spell. Treat this spell in all other ways as a magic missile spell, except that shield may only stop up to 10 of the bullets per casting.
I have made a D&D/Pathfinder spell that would likely be more at home in a Touhou game. My apologies in advance.
EDIT: Please inform me if I screwed up anything major in terms of rules text.
EDIT 2: Seeing some glaring flaws in power level, and that no one was replying, I edited the spell's text somewhat.
Honestly, I liked that they tried to dumb down the mechanics. Before you throw things, hear me out.
They made it easier for new players to get into, sure. But that's not what I'm talking about so much. I'm talking about not having a bunch of effects that are either way too low-level (I honestly believe that save-or-die/suck spells should be higher-level by nature, and less likely to succeed, much like in Final Fantasy Classic), or were technically combat despite being displayed as utility (Grease).
I guess in short, I like damage more than debuffs and instakills. If there is a debuff, to me it should be secondary; the thrill of rolling 5d6 fire damage is greater for me when I play.
Of course, they didn't balance it too well, and there was an issue with Rituals (basically, if the one-use scroll costs the same as the page in your ritual book, WHO BUYS THE SCROLL?), and feats felt meh. But some of the concepts regarding powers were cool. If only they hadn't decided you need to replace powers every so often...that broke suspension of disbelief.
Okay. So, would it be perfectly alright if I yoink some of these ideas for my own possible game? (I personally think sorcerer would make a decent "caster class" as I described.) And what other major changes would you make?
Would ALL characters of certain classes (All classes, all PC classes, certain PC classes) be capable of techniques, or would there be a feat or something required to learn them? How would you deal with the 3.5/PF skill rank discrepancies? What about the bloodlines; would you make your own, or would they not be present? Would the sorcerer maybe work for bloodlines, and have them gain extra chakra instead of spell slots?
EDIT: For that matter, how would you know which classes get which skills? There's Chakra Control, as well as Tai-, Gen-, and Ninjutsu. But who would get what?
There are some things to watch out for. Don't let anyone play an elf older than is sensible for your campaign. You don't want an ancient horror rising from the depths from an age before recorded history, only for the party's elf to say, "Oh, I knew that ancient horror when it was just a wee thing."
Ageless elves that are easily accessible to the players can very easily destroy any mystery of the past.
Well, wouldn't the elf then have at LEAST 15 levels of whatever class/es if they're that old? While it might be fun to have a Gandalf in the party (super-powerful compared to the others, but dies early on and revives to help them when the gap isn't so big)...I dunno, seems like there'd be SOME common sense involved.
Then again, common sense is showing to not be so common :P
Technically, everyone does. So, I'd assume yes. Remember, Wrath is a sin (God knows how many times I've succumbed to it since I was 5). Lust is a sin (and what is sex, but acting on love and lust)? Pride is a sin (and oh my GOD are our politicians prideful, and just about everyone else).
Also: my hunch was correct, from the reply I got. It's not the sinners, it's those who reject Him that go to Hell, and only because, quote, "there's nowhere else for them to go".
Unfortunately, LilithsThrall, that is arguable. It would be nice if we got some writing in the sky that told us what exactly it was supposed to mean, but there would be people on each "side" who ignored what it meant. And if you recall, seeing just the aftermath of God's power unleashed on Sodom turned someone into a pillar of salt (I'd call it divine fallout, and now I want to make some kind of campaign out of demigod PCs who have to curtail their powers lest chaos reign). Who's to say the same wouldn't happen here if the clouds formed into letters?
What is arguable? Are you saying that when Ezekiel says that the sin of Sodom was failure to care for the poor, that it is arguable whether he is actually saying that? Its pretty clear. If a person still finds that 'arguable', then giant letters in the sky won't make it any clearer.
Not what I meant. I could indeed have been clearer.
What I meant was the thesis statement, not the entire paper. Yes, Ezekiel says that's ONE of their sins. There are others mentioned, AFAIK.
Shifty wrote:
Oh I'm being deadly serious.
I'm sure that most (99%) religious folk are normal and sensible people who completely accept that government is there for the administration of our society, and to ensure we have things like schools and roads; the thought that a Govt could be used as a Deific figure (or that people believe that the Govt is trying to get people to believe it is) is 'nuts', hence they'd be 'nutters'.
So, was George Orwell a nutter? He warned against the signs of that happening, and I've seen 'em happen in America, in real life. Please read Animal Farm and 1984. Then tell me you weren't talking about doing EXACTLY what Big Brother was doing in that book. I'd love a good laugh, but I'll have to settle for a good cry.
Quote:
Secular nutters on the other hand have their own delusional fears no doubt, but those delusional wouldn't be about Govt trying to become God.
You lost me on the Close Encounters bit anyway, no idea what that was about :p
Grouping an entire people as delusional is not better than grouping an entire people as inferior. Didn't we try to leave that crap behind with the end of segregation?
As for the encounter, you'd never believe me, but I'll tell you anyways.
The Landover Baptist site? Everyone familiar with the fact that they're actually trolls? If not, you are now.
Anyways, I wasn't aware of it at the time, and was riding with my dad and his designated driver (he was getting an exam that made it necessary) when I realized, typical me, I was furious enough to be shaking because of their s~$!. Much like I am now. So, exhausted for resources, I did something I rarely did, and still rarely do, due to how generally-not-religious I was and how much I still struggle to think of it.
I prayed. I ended up asking for Jesus to take my hand if He was there due to sheer desperation. Or, I tried. I didn't finish the very thought before I felt a warmth and pressure in my semi-open palm.
So yeah, that's my encounter. I don't expect anyone else to believe me, or accept that it could happen. S'matter of fact, knowing what jerks (lightly put) humans can be, and often are, I expect hate mail via PMs. But I know what I felt, I know what happened from my perspective. And frankly, I feel quite offended, and yet justified. I've made mistakes, just like you. I know I'm no better than you, nor you better than me. In anger, I forget. Is Wrath not a Deadly Sin, whether you believe in such things or not?
This is the point of any religion worth it's salt. The point is not merely morality, but also happiness. You can argue we're all like that Happy Blue Cult from Earthbound, or the priests of the Azaxian Empire from my homebrew games (they believed their empire was divine. Yes, I'm serious), or whatever. But we're not. That's not the point, and anyone who acts that way IS MISSING THE POINT.
...I can't really blame Hippygriff for missing the strawman I made. The argument wasn't perfect, I knew that. And those fleeing Sodom were warned not to look. I was just spouting off like a retard. Typical me.
Shifty: You DO realize that that's not going to help your case, right? People are already scared enough about their children going to public schools and being brainwashed to not accept anything but the government as a god.
And besides, you haven't had any close encounters.
EDIT: Apple, I already said that I meant that as a general. Perhaps I'm more retarded than I thought, looking back at my post. Do I need to edit?
Unfortunately, LilithsThrall, that is arguable. It would be nice if we got some writing in the sky that told us what exactly it was supposed to mean, but there would be people on each "side" who ignored what it meant. And if you recall, seeing just the aftermath of God's power unleashed on Sodom turned someone into a pillar of salt (I'd call it divine fallout, and now I want to make some kind of campaign out of demigod PCs who have to curtail their powers lest chaos reign). Who's to say the same wouldn't happen here if the clouds formed into letters?
EDIT: Hippy,
What religion, including Atheism (yes, I went there), doesn't state that there are flaws in humanity? Who is to say on this mortal coil what a "flaw" is? Scientists? They can be imperfect. Christianity assumes God is perfect, or at least omnipotent. Thus why we accept His law.
You also seem to not recall the story of Jesus. He died to save us from our sins. IE, you are a sinner, or you are a sinner who realizes this and tries to be better than that.
Hell, if you want to be brutally honest, it's those who reject God, not sinners, who perish in Hell, from my (admittedly limited) understanding. If it were sinners, we'd all be screwed. It'd be worse than Shin Megami Tensei with a dose of 1984 and a dash of Brave New World.
Whether I'm right or not, though, is the issue. I'll ask a close friend of mine.
… Granted I only skimmed Apple's posts, please show me where the hate is?
Well, that was more an "in general". My apologies for not making that clear. Still, some *cough*Bugleyman*cough* claim intellectual superiority in the same breath they insult me and others like me. (And before anyone asks, no I haven't sought "counseling".)
Hippygriff wrote:
Machaeus wrote:
TBH I believe it is genetic, but I don't know. If there is an actual "gay gene" then what's the difference? We all sin sometime. Whether you believe in sin or not is another matter.
What's the difference? Imagine if the bible said that people with your combination of hair and eye color were abominations.
You missed the rest of my post.
What part of "we are flawed by nature, we believe this is our key to overcoming that and being happy" do you not get?
Question, Apple: Was that right to do? Perhaps he should be more clear and say, "In a perfect world" or "In theory" or "We are supposed to do this blah blah blah". People seem to love strawmen here.
Now I recall why I tried to leave these forums, and only BUY STUFF here.
What Ancient Sensei said was what is SUPPOSED to happen for Christians. What we are SUPPOSED to realize and how we are SUPPOSED to act. Is that so hard? Christians are not perfect, and we realize this if we are any kind of smart. Yet, you and every other person who prefers to spit bile as opposed to reasonable conversation wants to judge us as though we ARE or HAVE TO BE perfect, simply because we believe in God.
Please, get past the hate in your own heart. You don't have to seek God or even a god to do so, but I've found it actually helps a bit.
TBH I believe it is genetic, but I don't know. If there is an actual "gay gene" then what's the difference? We all sin sometime. Whether you believe in sin or not is another matter.
EDIT: Yay for Gendo. This is what we're SUPPOSED to do: See ourselves, Accept ourselves, Accept others, Reject our flaws and try to push past them. This is a fairly universal concept in religion, right?
Edit the Second: Just thought of a point. Think of homosexuality and all other traits of the mind and body as ability scores. Sometimes you roll high STR, sometimes you roll low. Some people roll low on the Kinsey Scale, sometimes you roll high. Sometimes you roll angry, sometimes you roll nice. Sometimes your will is weak, sometimes it's strong.
In short, if you want to be RPG-ish, some people genetically roll that they have to be angry at something (low CHA), and sometimes they have a hard time not giving into that tendency (low WIS). Just a thought.
