|
|
|
Recent posts by
Riskbreaker:
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
William Pall wrote:
Azzy wrote:
See, I pictured Valeros as straight--and completely sexually frustrated. The way I see it, Merisiel sees him as a brother. Kyra and he have been (very platonic) friends for a long time (he doesn't think of her in the romantic fashion, plus her crusader aspect is little difficult to get past). Seoni, would be a prospect, but between cultural differences, her mysticism, bizzare personality traits, etc. he can't figure her out--or decide if he should even try. Hitting on barmaid never works either because either he get guilt trips from the girls or the barmaids think he's a complete playboy with his own harem and won't give him the time of day. Sometimes having a gaggle of female friends is a real detriment to one's sex life.
Who's to say that it's always going to be this group of four iconics grouped together? Once all of them have been released, Paizo might mix and match the groups depending on whatever whims they choose. Val might not always be paired up with three women.
But, I guess for the course of RotRL . . . I like it.
There are also four iconics so far, but six covers that need making. They could do Karzoug, but that still leaves one cover wanting (plus they used Karz on the alternate volume one). Maybe more will be coming sooner rather than later?
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moff Rimmer wrote:
Riskbreaker wrote:
He was talking to a country full of assumed-believers, after all, not those of us in the modern world.
I don't know that he was talking to "assumed-believers". The "believers" of the time really didn't like him at all. I think that he was trying to teach people things regardless of where they were at. He used examples and situations that made sense to them at the time. Even today, if I were to talk about 'heaven' or 'hell' everyone here would have some kind of mental picture that would have a number of similarities. And not everyone here would consider themselves a "believer".
I meant believers in God and followers of the old testament, not necessarily believers as we might call people in our countries today. Israel was built and run on not only a belief in God, but a belief that they were God's chosen and that God led them there and gave them that land and their laws. I assume they still had non-believers, but Israel then and the modern world now aren't really comparable as far as a basic belief that God exists and that our law is his law, etc. Atheism and philosophy have come a long way in establishing alternate world-views, not to mention those of other religions not touched on by Jesus .
Moff Rimmer wrote:
As far as the 'modern world'...
If the Bible is 'just' a relic of the times, then I really don't see much reason in putting much more faith/belief in it either than maybe some names, places and a few events. Because if we take your stance, then NOTHING that Jesus/God said applies to us at all in the "modern world" -- and I'm not sure that I buy that either. And you could say the same thing about anyone in history. (But they were talking about 'those' people -- not us.)
I'll stop now... :-)
I don't mind, and I get where you're coming from. But I don't see it hard to put Jesus's audience at the time into context and consider that he was talking to a bunch of people with certain inherant understandings and misunderstandings which may be different from ours today.
For a believer, that doesn't necessarily cheapen the basic concepts that Jesus came, was the son of God, performed miracles, died for our sins, and will come back one day.
What I meant was actually geared more toward what you were saying rather than establishing a stance of my own, in that we in the modern world can still focus on the ideas Jesus was trying to get across without getting confused by some of the contexts, a lot of which no longer apply, since many of us are no longer ancient world Middle Easterners.
We can study his reference of the Eye of the Needle, for example, and get the basic point of what he meant without already knowing what and where the Eye of the Needle was. That point is no less valid for us today as it was then, similiar to the idea of loving one's neighbor as yourself, turning the other cheek, and many other core Jesus points.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moff Rimmer wrote:
Riskbreaker wrote:
I have a pretty hard time believing in hell as a place. Someone once told me that proper translation for the word used in the original Greek simply means 'death' or 'the grave', so in actuality (if you believe in that sort of thing), people don't burn forever in a fiery pit; they just die, almost as atheists think of death. Anyone else heard that?
Wow. This is starting up again? Not a problem.
Sorry, I admit I didn't scan the thirty-some-odd other pages, but if this particular bit has been discussed, I'll see what I can find. I sort of assumed it hadn't, apparently naively.
Moff Rimmer wrote:
The ancient Hebrew language tended to leave a fair amount of room for interpretation. Especially with regards to the Old Testament.
There are a number of passages in the New Testament that talk about Hell in a different light --
Luke 16 (NIV) wrote:
The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'
There are also a number of places in Revelation and more than likely other places as well that I can't think of off the top of my head.
But if you don't believe in the Bible, I'm not sure why heaven would exist either.
There are just so many interpretations of things, I wanted to see if anyone knew much of the original translated word. It's tough because specific references can be taken to mean a lot of things, like how the rich man in your example could just be metaphorically suffering and communicating. Gets me all /confused.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Morris wrote:
oh, and as to the 'kids who want to know advanced math would be taking calculus' I know many parents, and teachers, who have snuck math and spelling and writing and other skills in under the noses of those same kids with D&D. I have to reject that arguement then. The kid who thinks 'Math is hard' can learn something from calculating their AC (or THAC0 for us old timers)
For me, simpler is better because I can get more friends to play. Not many of my friends are hardcore gamers, so if I can get them to play without confusing them with 20 years of rules add-ons, that's at least a few more people in the hobby that otherwise wouldn't ever consider it.
That may not be a direct response to what I quoted, but it's true that the basic 3.5 system is far from being for everybody and isn't easy to learn. When I try to introduce it to people who aren't kids, they pretty much respond with 'why would I want to play that, it seems way too complicated'.
Maybe I'm out of my element and I should stick with playing this type of game with people who want to play a complex game with a complex rules system, but it seems better for the hobby overall if they can simplify at least character creation, so I can teach people the nuances of the game slowly instead of making them feel way in over their heads at the start.
That's why I like, for example, the Star Wars SE skill system. It accomplishes the same thing without being intimidatingly complicated to a new player.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike McArtor wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
Everyone got kicked - for some reason, Tranquility decided to have itself an aneurism or two today.
I just got kicked. Trying to log back on gives me this:
"Proxy not connected to sol servers"
Whatever that means.
I don't care if it is down right now, as long as it comes back up in the next 20 minutes or so, so I can change out my training skill. ;D
I find myself being pretty weird about scheduling my time around switching up my training. I'm soon going to lose internet for 3-5 days and the first thing I thought was 'Oh no! That's really going to be inefficient for training!'
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disenchanter wrote:
I admit that I didn't read the Jedi Counseling reports before, but I find the following:
Sebastian wrote:
...the truth is that our objective from day one has been to streamline the rules, for two reasons. First, we wanted to speed up gameplay so it's less plodding and more cinematic in feel. Second, we wanted to speed up the "bookkeeping" part of the game so you could spend more time actually playing and less time auditing character sheets.
to be a mighty bold statement considering everything they were aiming for, WoTC stripped from the D6 WEG version when they went D20.
I might not have all the facts straight, but I believe Bill Slavicsek has overseen most of the Star Wars rpg for WotC, which he also did for WEG, so one gets the sense that maybe they just wanted change for change's sake (along with supporting the d20 system) when they originally took over for WEG, then handed the d20 product off to others who had their own ideas.
I could be wrong, though.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sebastian wrote:
Tambryn wrote:
If you would Sebastian, please point me in the direction of these articles examining the design decisions behind the changes to Star Wars for SWSE.
Thanks.
Tam
This is all stolen from ENWorld. They're really the best source for 4e news.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/SagaPreview1
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/SagaPreview2
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/SagaPreview4
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/SagaPreview4
Oh. My link is different, but still cool. So... there it is.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fatespinner wrote:
Another thing we don't really have: Commanders. This actually falls under the 'entreprenuers' heading, but it focuses on leadership and team-enhancing skills. Commanders are able to bestow passive bonuses on other ships in their gang, coordinate strikes against enemy targets, maneuver groups through and around various star systems, and all that jazz. They lack a lot of the combat potential on their own, however, but that weakness can be overcome with time.
Seems like this path would be rather difficult to handle solo. How do they get money and handle themselves before they really get going on commander skills? Would it be best to just sort of sponsor one among us to be a commander by giving guild support to their character? I'd be down with helping out with that.
To be honest, I'm not really sure exactly how I help the corp on my own. Someone mentioned loyalty points somewhere, and I don't know what that means. Also guarding miners, but I'm not sure of schedules for everyone yet, or how much time I can devote to it, or at what point I'll be tough enough to do some damage.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure how many people this would interest, as it's almost totally unrealistic, but here goes anyway...
One of the side effects to the whole WotC transition-to-4th-edition thing has seemingly been to totally ignore the Star Wars rpg for quite a while. Looks like upcoming we've got a book about spaceships for Winter and then all the way until the end of Spring for a video game tie-in book. Could be cool, but... it's a video game tie-in.
Anyway, I love Star Wars and I love the Star Wars rpg. This isn't exactly a dead time in the Star Wars mythos, so there's no reason not to market it much more than they do. I also really like the Saga Edition, but my feathers got pretty ruffled when I read that it was just a testing ground for 4th (which was backed up by virtually no updates on the web site and a very sparse release schedule).
So, to the plan: WotC gives Paizo the Star Wars license and use of the Saga Edition like they get to use the OGL. They then get to make high-quality sci-fi stuff with a license that would make it worth their time. Their stuff is better than the non-existant stuff WotC isn't producing (and probably would be better than what they could do anyway), WotC is free to focus on 4th, Star Wars rpg fans get sweet new material, Paizo gets to cash in on a highly-desirable license, and everyone is happy.
So, if anyone working for Paizo loves Star Wars and has connections with the Lucas marketing people and/or Wizards of the Coast... I implore you to pitch this. And I would love you for it.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So... if money talks and you want to stop the trend of making new stuff, which is okay because you already have the old stuff collected, why not just stick with the old stuff? You could play for the rest of your days with it, I'm sure, save a lot of money and not be annoyed by 4th.
I'm pretty sure Wizards isn't trying to bleed the life out of anyone, but I guarantee if they never changed with the times, D&D would be gone and you'd have to stick with your old stuff anyway, because there's no money in staying loyal to an aging market at the expense of drawing in more potential customers because your product got too convoluted for the new breed of gamer.
They have to keep turning a profit, and there's only so much stuff you can really produce crunch-wise before you start to lose people. So you start fresh in a way that will hopefully get a bunch of new people, and that bunch of new people grew up with the Matrix, manga and World of Warcraft.
Of course Paizo produces better stuff, but what percent of Paizo's sales covers the market as a whole? The hardcore market is a hardcore market, not a mainstream market, and just as Paris Hilton exists as a celebrity but probably everyone on these boards doesn't give a damn, we're still the minority and all those other people have more money than us.
Besides, it's a game that's in your head. You can do whatever the heck you want, and you've already got everything you need to do it with.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just wanted to throw in that the argument that because one thing is legal and just as bad/worse than marijuana means marijuana is not really bad is not an argument at all. Law isn't about bad vs. good, which is what we are discussing here; law is about order vs. chaos, a different subject entirely.
What is "evil" (I use the word because it has been used to describe marijuana in this discussion) is not inherantly unlawful (see lawful evil as a D&D alignment for reference), just as what is "good" is not always legal (see Emancipation Proclamation, women's suffrage, civil rights).
We're not necessarily in the middle of a golden age where everything legal right now is good and everything illegal right now is wrong (see gay marriage, abortion, aggressive action against nonaggressive country/s). Those individual subjects are essentially on massive islands of their own, and thus require an entirely different discussion each.
I believe the original poster intended to imply that marijuana use is wrong, and just because he didn't also directly state that he believes alcohol abuse and abuse of over-the-counter drugs is wrong doesn't mean he doesn't believe it. Although he does use legality as a backup to his arguments, that's a gray area in a lot of ways (medicinal use, legality in countries besides his own, etc).
As a final note, errors such as the legality argument on the part of anyone does not also falsify the rest of that person's arguments. Just don't make an erroneous argument your entire argument.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heathansson wrote:
I'm hoping it's one of those over-price-at-the-beginning deals, like with most new car models, iphones, and all that jazz. Ten to fifteen dollars a month seems a little stiff for a magazine you can't hold in your hand. Pdf's to me anyway are a pain in the ass to deal with. I know people who own the complete Dragon runs on disc (this product came out a few years back) who haven't read it all because pdf's are a pain in the ass to deal with.
I guess I'll have to wait and see what the online dealy is and how good it is, cos that's a fat load of jink for two magazines on pdf, by my reckoning. I'm also hoping the margins are unreal on this, so the price will have to come down to rope in more gamers at a lower price. Seems to me that $5 a month would be a more manageable and realistic cost for such a product on a pdf.
Also, I'm not advocating piracy in any way, I think it sucks. But at $10-$15 monthly, that's just gonna give more impetus to blackmarketeers to do their thing.
Hopefully they're just testing the waters to see if they can get a positive reaction (ie people saying they're willing to pay) and they'll lower it closer to game time.
But I totally hear you on pdfs. I get that they're trying to push toward the future or whatever and compete in the modern market aiming for a bigger audience and all that, and I try to stay postive about 4th and plan to check it out, but the switch to online only for the magazines is something I will not do. I didn't even read Pathfinder early as I just can't get into pdfs. It's just not the same.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ASEO wrote:
I'm very impressed by the production quality of the Pathfinder book, but the angular interior artwork leaves something to be desired. I just don't care for the strande blocky illustrations. The illustration of the Goblin Warchanter was a bit cartoony bit ok, and I do like the art of the goblin mounted on the goblin dog on page 14, but the illustrations of Aldren Foxglove, Shalelu Andosans (nice "poision elves" ears...grrr) and especially Tsuto Kaijitsu are just plain bad. And I know she's going demonic and all, but what is with the 2x4s sticking out of Nualia's hips?
Not as bad as the art for Wil Save, but close :-(
ASEO out
I actually liked that particular artist/style the best, though admittedly I wouldn't want it to fill the volume. I thought it was a nice change of pace.
Lately it seems like there's been a backlash against non-realistic art, most of the anger directed towards what people think is manga-inspired work, but I have to say that I like D&D because it's not realistic, not because it is.
Our imaginations can figure out what these characters would look like without any art at all, and most especially in a realistic sense; don't you think it's cool to maybe think of things in a way you might not've?
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Riskbreaker wrote:
I dig that he cares, though, and I for sure wouldn't ever want to add to the burdens of someone out there trying to do some good.
Nothing wrong with trying to do good, and he has the absolute right to get his message across. But Prohibition was well-intentioned, and I think so was McCarthy. I think what got people riled up was the initial post:
Firebeetle wrote:
I really hope I can spend money on Paizo products again. Send this doll back to the manufacturer now.
He can boycott if he likes, of course, but to peremptorily command Paizo to discontinue the sale of the item--as if the company and everyone else on the thread were his personal lackeys, subject to his opinion in all things--well, that was a bit hard to swallow. I respect his right to speak his mind, but I don't grant him the right to tell everyone else what to do.
Well stated. I guess I just got over the initial bit pretty quick, as I bet the Paizo people did without much more thought.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
That said, I'd very much like to see some well-reasoned arguments against marijuana use here-- ones that respect the difference between correspondence and causality, for example, and which rely on research and scientific evidence rather than rhetoric and anecdotes.
Sadly, I'm not in a position to argue. I generally find myself in a minority in such debates, in that I don't have enough knowledge to present facts and I don't have enough evidence from other sources to choose a side.
However, I will say that if everyone cared about their neighbors, friends and family and themselves in a much more sincere, selfless and corn-ball way (think Pay it Forward, if you caught that one), issues like this would iron themselves out. So I'd rather fight for the whole love thy neighbor cause instead of getting confused by all the other hyper-complex issues in this world.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sean, Minister of KtSP wrote:
You say all marijuana use is evil? Evil is a really strong word. Perhaps the reason for your zealotry (something I disdain no matter what its cause) is that you have strong religious beliefs on the subject? Satan is twirling his moustache somewhere and laughing evilly every time someone lights up a joint somewhere? If religion is, in fact, the cause of...
I think this post particularly needs to be commented on before I move on, though.
First of all, not everyone who stands up for something in a real way and not just on messageboards does so because they're "religious". There was pretty much no reason to bring this into the discussion, as Firebeetle never mentioned a religious word (and evil is hardly a religious-only idea).
Second, I'm pretty sure you're on target as far as offending people who are religious/spiritual, too. Not everyone who believes in God and Satan assume he's behind marijuana, or even that marijuana is expressly bad.
Again, just to play the devil's advocate, as it were, you did a fair bit of berating in using ideas like "spin" and "emotional manipulation", then tossed in Satan twirling his moustache and using things like "silly boycott", and seemingly in defense of you being offended. Seems ironic on a few levels.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valegrim wrote:
sidenote: first day of football; go lions :)
I have a few questions; is the player of the account the only one who can upgrade his ship? if you quit training a skill do you loose all that time you have invested in training it?
I can't help you on the upgrade question, but as long as you switch the skill you're learning and not outright cancel it, you'll still have the amount you learned when you come back to it.
Sidenote, first day of football: Go Dolphins!
Also, for the corp as a whole, I've switched to my new combat-centric character. Goes by the name Vacuum Jack.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|