Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

Samnell's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 3,710 posts (4,032 including aliases). No reviews. 2 lists. No wishlists. 9 aliases.

1 to 50 of 292 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gay Male Inhuman
Theran, Clan Silverlight wrote:

I'm front!

I hover ominously in the background, thinking impure thoughts.

Also consider yourselves free of combat time for the moment and at liberty to RP your hearts out. :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gay Male Inhuman
Saito Samson wrote:

Well, perhaps ironically, real life has gotten really busy for myself as well and it looks like I need to take a break until the 25th.

Feel free to DMPC me if you like=) the hiatus list stands at Yridhrennor & Steave (until the 20th) and Saito (until the 25th). Noted. :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gay Male Inhuman
Steave Rojerz wrote:
I'm here until Sunday. Then I'll hit the dark side of the moon.

Understood. Enjoy being comfortably numb. :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Life of Ayn Rand in comic form.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Finished Gallagher a couple of days ago. Started in on Stampp's Causes of the Civil War. I saw it described years ago as essentially a book that presents every possible argument and asks you to pick one, but it actually appears to be a survey of the historiography of the question up to 1991 with major primary sources included. So that's neat.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Yeah, but avoiding to the same source we're going to hell for wearing cotton-polyester blends.
Reading that part figuratively is how they justified the ban on interracial marriage.

There were also arguments along the lines that from the patriarchs' narrative they knew that Yahweh created separate types of people and separated them. They might all be human (though a minority of proslavery authors clearly thought in species terms and didn't see black people as human, the argument against them was essentially that it was unbiblical) but that didn't mean they should mix. The sin of Ham (actually Canaan, but they mostly thought it was Ham for some reason I don't know) and all that applied.

The peopling the world narratives do play into that kind of thing. They don't have the familiar racial categories, but they are very much in the vein of "these people are descended from this inferior ancestor and therefore we're better". The people in question happened to map really well to the political situation in the Levant at time of writing. In fact, that's one way we date them. :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
I understand the love for Pratchett, but don't share it. He relies on the same general brand of humor as Douglas Adams (whose novels I also didn't like) and, to some extent, Monte Python (whom I also don't think are all that funny).

I tried, but I detest the guy's work. Same with Adams. I can take Python in small doses, but every time I tried to watch a full episode I found the experience utterly tedious. Actually dozed off once.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Since I had Eric Foner's Reconstruction open anyway:

Eric Foner wrote:

Some amendments, dealing with narrow, immediate concerns, can be thought of as statutes write large; altering one aspect of national life, they leave the larger structure intact. Others are broad statements of principle, giving constitutional form to the resolution of national crises, and permanently altering American nationality. The Fourteenth Amendment was a measure of this kind. In language that transcended race and region, it challenged legal discrimination throughout the nation and changed and broadened the meaning of freedom for all Americans.

On the precise definition of equality before the law, Republicans differed among themselves. Even moderates, however, understood Reconstruction as a dynamic process, in which phrases like "privileges and immunities" were subject to changing interpretation. They preferred to allow both Congress and the federal courts maximum flexibility in implementing the Amendment's provisions and combating the multitude of injustices that confronted blacks in many parts of the South. [...] Now, discriminatory state laws could be overturned by the federal courts regardless of which party dominated Congress. (Indeed, as in the Civil Rights Act, Congress placed great reliance on an activist federal judiciary for civil rights enforcement-a mechanism that appeared preferable to maintaining indefinitely a standing army in the South, or establishing a permanent national bureaucracy empowered to oversee Reconstruction.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Speaking of which, started in on Aptheker's American Negro Slave Revolts. S'alright.

Current events, alas, won't stay out of my reading:

Terrorist targeted historic SC church on 193rd anniversary of thwarted slave revolt planned by its founder

My immediate reaction was "JFC, white America. This s*$# again?"

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gay Male Inhuman
Abelard Lassmar wrote:

Oh my word...

Sounds like humanis policlub/Alamo 20k from Shadowrun meets Kafka! Yeesh.

The main human religion also had good points. It would have had genuinely evil antagonists from which it really did protect people as well as people who were more its victims...and victims who decided to take the fight back to them. But it would have been pretty hard to play a non-human in areas where it had cultural hegemony. I envisioned some halfling ghettos (since they're still half-human and might potentially be cured some day) but not much for other typical PC races.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gay Male Inhuman
Abelard Lassmar wrote:

That's what I thought - so these mongrelmen could well be Evil (and probably are, given their worship of Baphomet and evidence of blood sacrifice!), just low enough HD not to ping.

Samnell wrote:
What those results mean can vary character to character and religion to religion, of course. Knowledge (religion) checks can dig up official dogmas and relevant arguments on the issue.
I like it!

I'm a sucker for moral complexity. :)

My on-again, off-again homebrew project involved a world where every divine cast detect evil and it revealed a true and correct result...given the theology of the caster. So for most people it would ping the usual stuff, but also catch anybody anathematized by the main religion and/or practitioners of religious movements it considered evil even if the difference didn't involve something we'd usually see as an ethical matter.

Then I made most of the religions ethically diverse with a mix of makes-sense-to-us morals and more esoteric concerns that either only made sense in their particular frameworks or were clearly wrong or arbitrary by our standards. The dominant religion of the setting believed that only humans were ensouled and all else were a mix of monstrous beastman, devious fairies, damned infernalists, or divinely accursed. Halflings were the latter, imagined as humans who had through some ancient perfidy earned the eternal wrath of the gods. Thus they were marked, diminished, and separated from the fellowship of humanity for all their generations to come.

But that kind of thing is probably a bit demanding for a regular D&D/PF game, unless religious politics are the whole point. I like the idea, but I'm not totally sure I'd want to run Divinity School: The Boot Leathering. :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gay Male Inhuman
Theran, Clan Silverlight wrote:

You may absolutely shove a potion down my throat. But will you call me tomorrow?

As for hoarding potions, as a GM if I think they've got a lot of consumables, I'm not going to drop more because they don't need them. If they use them, then it's something they value and there might be a couple extras.

I knew this was all a scheme to make me crap more potions. I will not be deceived!

I'm totally deceived.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gay Male Inhuman
Theran, Clan Silverlight wrote:

Theran bleeds with experience. He's been much worse off.


It's a valiant bleeding. People will sing songs. :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gay Male Inhuman

Forgot to say that Steave is at 0 hp. Bad GM. No horrifyingly racist 19th century primary sources for you today.

Badguy ACs: 13 T11 F12

Galin stepped forward and struck, but the mongrel he chose parried his blade well short of its doing true harm. The weight of cudgel prevailed, this time, over skill with blade.

Saito is next. Order is Theran, Steave, Badguys, Galin, Saito, Yridhrennor, Abelard.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ended up starting Elizabeth Varon's Disunion! The Coming of the American Civil War 1789-1859. Got a really good session in before my brain threw up and insisted I had spent too much time with it. It's really good, though her presentation style is a bit backwards from what I'd prefer. She likes, so far, to take ostensibly unrelated issues and drill down to slavery, where I prefer to take slavery and build up to them.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gay Male Inhuman

In the early days of 3e, I was running a Sunless Citadel PBEM. Entrance to the dungeon involved climbing a rope down 50 feet. At one point a character, who in backstory was a failed paladin, was leaving the dungeon in a hurry and slightly ahead of others.

He fell. On the druid below. Cause of death: falling fallen paladin. Almost killed the paladin too. Player wrote a post where he looked heavenward and cursed my name. In-character. :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Book-free since I finished Baptist. Got into it with a guy I'm pretty sure got his degree circa 1950, or pledged Kappa Kappa Kappa, over at Reddit AskHistorians. The kind of guy who knows a whole lot about militaria and likes to quote Shelby Foote, but suddenly goes super general when confronted with non-military details. Asked him states' rights for what and he answered with a quote that amounted to "just because". Frequent reference to modern-day political tropes didn't help his case either. Way to live the military historian stereotype, dude. Could not think of a civil way to ask him if he knew that bedclothes don't make for the best headgear, let alone eyewear.

Might have otherwise yielded the point, but the best he could offer me were lots of handwaves and one popular work to make his case. Refused to engage much of anything I said to him, even when I went out of my way to quote direct passages from professionals. Turned my frustration with him, and my disinclination to flip the table and dive for his nuts with teeth bared, into a night of furious research that turned up a particularly condemnatory Calhoun quote (full letter not online, damn it) and the order of several books I wanted anyway. In the next few weeks I should have

The Causes of the Civil War edited by Kenneth Stampp. Never read anything of his and I'm getting one of those reprints that seem to have been popular in the early 90s. Looks like it's an essay collection, so it might be a good window on the late-50s historiography. Incorrect plural in the title, of course.

The Civil War and Reconstruction: A Documentary History, one of the newer standard anthologies of primary sources. Got it cheap.

The Confederate War by Gary Gallagher. Examines the motivations of Confederates in general. To judge from a few of his presentations I've seen, I expect a hefty chunk on that slavery now, slavery forever guy that everyone wants to pretend is an abolitionist in disguise. You know, the traitor we put on stamps instead of a tree for some reason that eludes me. (Gallagher's explanation of the rep: "People don't read.") He also has a book on the Union that does the same, which I'll get to eventually.

Those books got me a bit guilty about not frequenting the local bookstore, especially Gallagher since he's definitely still in print, but the used books were pretty cheap. So I went to the bookstore with a longshot, William W. Freehling's Prelude to Civil War: The Nullification Controversy in South Carolina, 1816-1836 from the mid-60s and Elizabeth Varon's recent Disunion!: The Coming of the American Civil War, 1789-1859. Expected no love on Freehling (last reprint, 1992) and was sure I'd get Varon.

They found both. I walked out rather lighter, and happier, than expected. Damned if I know which I'll crack first.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Having read a few novels and good sections of a few other history books in the interim, I finally finished The Half Has Never Been Told. I have really got to figure out a way to do my not-immediately-blog-related history reading without it feeling like it's piling up on top of the research.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
She's wicked into intersectionality so it was only a matter of time before the subject of black sci-fi/fantasy authors came up.
Check out some of W.E.B. DuBois' more speculative stuff, as well. And as a plus for the Doodle & fellow travelers, Wikipedia tells me "Du Bois believed that capitalism was a primary cause of racism, and he was generally sympathetic to socialist causes throughout his life."

He's not really wrong, exactly. It's one of those things that depends on your definition of capitalism*. The profit motive absolutely created slavery, which then required a justification. So we invented race to do the job. There's a pretty clear transition going on in the Chesapeake over the late 1600s from a world where at least some black men could own property, sue whites in court and win, and so forth. That kind of thing would be unthinkable in the Virginia of 1750 or 1900. The punchy summary is that racism (read as exploitation) created race (a fixed class of people imagined as destined for and requiring exploitation).

Those definitions are all a bit technical and not quite what people ordinarily mean, but I think they're a bit truer to how the systems have generally worked.

*The new hotness in the field right now is slavery & capitalism studies which generally cut against the grain of various Marxist interpretations that understood slavery as pre-capitalist.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gay Male Inhuman
Saito Samson wrote:
Samnell wrote:

So much paranoia! It's like you have reason to suspect foes lurking about.

Wha?! What a weird, untrue, accusation...




*whistles innocently*

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gay Male Inhuman
Saito Samson wrote:
Because it will prolly come up, perhaps even very soon lol, what's your policy on replacement characters, Samnell?

Planning on giving a balor a bear hug in the near future? :)

Same level, mythic tier, and typical wealth by level ought to do it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gay Male Inhuman
Yridhrennor Arahaelon wrote:

As for opening locks and skneaing.. Yridhrennor has "open/close" and a ton of spells (some of which allow for invisibility). Traps can be solved with summonses :)

You have three perfectly good NPCs you can use before you start wasting summons. Teofil will never see it coming. :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gay Male Inhuman
Steave Rojerz wrote:
Steave reverently picks up the mirror-bright silver scale and looks at it from a few angles. He wonders it if is from Terendelev the Ancent.

Steave receives a sense of profound sadness and determination when he touches the scale. The memory of a long-ago crusader flashes through his mind, standing in curtains of lightning and gales of magical frost but remaining unscathed.

The scale can grant resist elements, but only vs. cold or electricity, three times a day.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gay Male Inhuman
Yridhrennor Arahaelon wrote:
sorry about the lack of a ranged touch attack on the spell... kiddies were demanding to be educated... or somesuch.

It's fine. What you forget, I can always roll. For example, I noticed Yridhrennor forgot to declare pledging himself to Lamashtu by means of interpretative dance and synchronized trepanation. :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gay Male Inhuman
Yridhrennor Arahaelon wrote:

i can.. um..see thigns really far away. And, um... do battlefield controls! Oh, i can probably summon something that can heal us... eventually

And look good doing it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gay Male Inhuman

Steave is sure that something has gone badly wrong with the Wardstone. The rifts are something out of the Worldwound...or the Abyss.

It's bad. The demons have complete surprise. Most of the crusaders are still on their backs. People are dying by the dozen. The enemy has destroyed Kenabres' chief fortification. It might take a miracle to safe the city now...or Terendelev slaying the Storm King. Demons often rout when their masters are bested.

Steave saw too many people to ever help at once. A few crusaders fought a desperate rearguard in an alley, children cowering behind them and vrocks circling overhead. Babau flickered about the plaza, slaying and gone in the same breath. Mobs of dretches clashed with youths barely old enough to take their crusader oaths. The ground heaved and a well-dressed merchant began to slide toward a fissure. Roars sounded above and a cold wind blew as Terendelev breathed frost on the Storm King, much of it flashing to steam against his burning body.

Steave opens his divine senses and of pure malice hammered into his skull. He reels, feeling the thick taint of the balor lord above and whatever happened in the Kite even with their great distance.

Steave got hit with overwhelming evil is is stunned for a round.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gay Male Inhuman
Yridhrennor Arahaelon wrote:

.. I just realized that my pic looks like Viserys! NOOOOOOOOOoooooOOOOOooooOOOOOoooooooo

So...does that wake the dragon?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe I should wait for three or four days to heighten the antici...

Bah, I'll be cruel enough all the same and by indulging in this one cruelty now I give up time that I could spent on multiple simultaneous cruelties.

The selections are:
Abelard Lassmer
Clan Silverlight
Korina, Daughter of Yog-Sothoth
Saito Samson
Steave Rojerz
Yridhrennor Aradhaelon

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Robert Henry wrote:
Have you thought about running a home brew game set during the civil war in a fantasy world. I have this half drow-half-farie two gun shootist scout I want to play. Seriously a black wasp -winged wild Bill Hickok

I suspect that my fantasy version of the Civil War would be way too dark to have fun gaming in.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Yuugasa wrote:

By the gods I don't believe in, a blessing from the heavens! (if the heavens were real)

Wrath of the Righteous, that adventure path I've always wanted to play, run by Samnell, my #1 blogger crush! Some things are so good I can't believe they are real!

At least someone will understand if I inadvertently post a wall of text about literacy in the nineteenth century. :)

If anybody's curious and boring in similar ways to how I am (middle 19th century US politics & slavery, mostly), the blog is here. I am a terrible self-promoter, but sometimes I do recognize good excuses.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dave Herman wrote:
This appeals to my desire to try crazy things. I'm currently thinking Slayer/Inquisitor follower of Erastil. Or maybe Bloodrager/Cavalier. Or Swashbuckler/Rogue. Or Summoner/Ninja. Can I play 20 characters?

You can play infinitely many characters...but only one in this game. :)

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hello! I’m Samnell, or I’m wearing his underwear, or possibly some other Samnell and/or underwear combination. Best not delve too deeply. I propose, as the thread title suggests, to run the Wrath of the Righteous adventure path for four to five gestalt PCs who will become mythic, with an outside option for six if I really can’t decide between a few. One of these spots is bespoken, so there’s room for three or four, maybe five, others.

With gestalt PCs. And mythic. Both. Together. Am I a crazy person?:
No, I am not a crazy person. My last therapist may have written that in his own blood, but that’s still an official judgment. There will be significant modifications to the more problematic aspects of the mythic rules, many swiped from posters here, with an eye toward still having fun without being able to splatter Iomedae with blood from the bowels of the Abyss when you attack Deskari, miss, and slightly graze the air. Cool powers are fun, but they’re much less fun when they reduce any challenge to the initiative roll.

About Me:
If I am not a crazy person, then who am I to think I can run this thing? This will be my first PBP as the all-quivering horror behind the great cardboard wall, but I’ve been running games online since 2000, mostly via email. My current projects are a Second Darkness game (early in book 5) and an all-Hellknights Carrion Crown (late in book two). I tried Wrath with some of my regulars, but it didn’t quick click. I still like the big ideas and Paizo has these nice PBP tools, which a friend of mine recommends highly. So here I am, a bit inspired by Acid Milk Hotel’s late Wrath game where I was a player, to give it another go. How are you?

This is WotR, but I’ll change some things:

It would be shifty, or something else spelled roughly that way, to advertise a Wrath game and then run something radically different. I don’t plan to do that, but I do reserve the right to spindle, mutilate, expand/shorten, and all the other usual GM prerogatives. I’ll certainly adjust foes. All this probably goes without saying, but I’ve gone and said it anyway because I really wanted to write the first sentence of this paragraph. You can still trust the advice of the player’s guide when planning your character.

Non-rules things to include with your PC:
Each PC should come with a paragraph, more if you like, of backstory. This should explain how and why your PC is in Kenabres, their relation to the crusade, and give me an idea of their personality.

Additionally, please give me at least one goal that your PC hopes to achieve in-game. It doesn’t have to be a huge deal, but should be something important to him or her.

Finally, give me an idea of what mythic path you intend to pursue. This needn’t be final. I’d just like it as a heads-up for when the time comes. Despite the fact that you are gestalt, you will only get the one path unless you buy access to another through some mythic ability.

Ready for rules?:

You can draw on any Paizo content you like, aside playtest stuff, but I reserve the right to say no if something seems out of whack.

PCs should be made with the gestalt rules, available at this finely crafted link. We start at first level and will level up based on hitting various story milestones rather than by XP accumulation. Please be sure to wrestle your PC into the normal Paizo statblock format for ease of reference.

Generate your PCs with 25 point buy. Feel free to avail yourself of the calculator here. You may reduce no more than one ability score below 10, before racial modifiers.

You may play any non-evil alignment that you like, provided you can play it in a way that doesn’t constantly cause needless strife. It’s fine to have some RP tension in the party, but when things really get to the point of players at cross-purposes everyone tends to lose out.

PCs begin with the maximum gold specified for their class to spend on gear, keep, give to poor orphans, or whatever else you’d like. You can stretch that gold (but not the orphans) further through the use of crafting skills. Assume all pre-game rolls are successful. During the game, item crafting and item crafting feats are fair game. There will be significant periods when you are not racing any particular clock and can take time out to invest in making things and other pursuits.

PCs begin play with two traits, one of which must be a Wrath of the Righteous campaign trait. They’re in the Player’s Guide. The campaign traits make certain assumptions about your mythic path and then give you an extra benefit for choosing the “right” one. Ignore those. Traits will function the same way regardless of your mythic choices.

I have long disliked the flavor of a continental-scale common tongue. The common tongue of the crusade is Taldane. Most people in Mendev who deal with crusaders often will have at least basic competency in it, but at home most speak Hallit. You get Taldane for free and can choose Hallit as a bonus language, unless a Mendev native. Natives can have both for free.

Rather than roll for hit points, at each level just take your maximum. Foes in this AP tend to hit hard.

Norms and Expectations:

I plan for a post a day. If it’s been roughly that long and I haven’t heard from you, I may bot your PC in the interests of keeping things moving. I know from experience that it’s really easy to get into a waiting loop in online games.

Please list key stats (current/total hit points, ACs, saves, initiative, perception) on the little text bar under your alias. You can include more if you want, but those are the big ones that I’ll likely need from everyone all at once and rather often so having them in the thread is very convenient.

I’ll roll combat-beginning things like perception and initiative, as well as anything else that would benefit from immediate resolution. So if I throw a fireball at you, I’ll roll the saves. You are free, and encouraged, to write flavor text for how you dodged and made your save or how you failed to do so. I’ll do all these rolls in the open using the dice commands. I’ll probably bury the lot of them in a spoiler and just put descriptive text outside it to avoid making walls of numbers. That does mean that the dice gods may cruelly frown upon you, even lethally, but I think that mythic PCs will end up with plenty of built-in plot armor. If it comes to that point, I will make raise dead and its cousins readily available.

When you do something that requires a roll from an NPC, like casting a hostile spell, I’ll roll that save. There are too many conditional bonuses, resistances, and immunities that might come into play to frontload a listing of them all and at times the PCs should be surprised by them. When foes come loaded with buffing spells and the like, I will do my best to remember to indicate that in their descriptions under the premise that active magical effects in close proximity generally have some visible manifestation.

I aim to be a bit more forthcoming with ACs, as they tend to be all-or-nothing affairs. Thus you should ordinarily be able to resolve things requiring attack rolls in the post with your declaration. You’re encouraged to flavor your hits and misses how you like. Most of the time, I plan to outright give you the hit point totals of your targets so you can know right away if you did them in or not. For important NPCs and monsters, I’ll keep the hit point total hidden but plan to give you general descriptors of their condition like “unharmed” and “near death”.

Please try to get along, at least so far as the game threads go, OOC. We’re going to be spending a fair bit of time together.

I’m new at this medium and will probably screw it up. Be patient. :)

General House Rule:

One of the big issues I’ve read about with mythic is that you get multipliers on top of multipliers to your critical hits, plus it becomes easier to make crits, plus you get much bigger modifiers to be multiplied. Some more than once. My fix for that is a global change to crit rules:

When you confirm a critical hit, you do not roll twice and you do not multiply your non-precision damage modifiers. Instead, a crit translates into an automatic maximum damage roll, to which you add your modifiers as normal. If your crit multiplier is greater than x2, you get 50% more weapon damage per point. So x2 gives the base 100%, x3 brings you to 150%, x4 to 200%, etc.

Mythic Stuff:

This isn’t going to come up for a long while, but here are the high-level basics of my changes. I can’t foresee every possible combination and reviewing every ability in the book would be tedious even by my standards. I plan to establish some basic principles instead and then we’ll work through things together.

So here are those basic principles:

Mythic power will regenerate at the rate of 1d4 points per day. Completing a mythic trial will grant an immediate additional recovery roll.

Abilities that give you additional actions do not stack with one another. You can only have one extra of anything per round. When you can buy an extra action, it will cost you 5 mythic power and at least a swift action, possibly more depending on the ability.

The “cast any spell on your class spell list for free” abilities will cost you a swift action to expend the mythic power. They further cost 1 mythic power per spell level. If compatible with metamagic, the cost is determined by the spell’s adjusted level rather than its base. They also require the normal action necessary to cast the spell. These are over and above any restrictions in the text.

You can get off more than one spell per round by metamagic, or by casting spells which already permit it, but not by use of mythic abilities.

Abilities that bypass energy immunities and damage resistance will not do so, but will retain any other functions.

Abilities, notably mythic power attack and vital strike, which allow you to multiple your damage modifiers do not do so.

If anything's unclear, question away.

Submissions are due at 5 PM, Eastern Time, April 17, 2015.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:

The religious reasoning is obvious. Nowhere in the Bible does it say being black (or any other race) is being sinful against God. It does actually say that about Gays.

My Bible includes this provision:

The Book of Samnell, 1:1-6 wrote:
Thou shalt patronize the businesses of bigots unimpeded by their hatred, under the smiling eye of the state, and call forth from the state wrathful castigations should they deny you. Further thou shalt take pleasure in their lamentations. On hearing them thou shalt go unto the internet and learn of their taboos, that thou offendest them most.

Where's my freedom of religion? I want me some American values!

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I was just watching this video of one of Eric Foner's lectures and he had this worthwhile point about private business vs. state action. Helpfully, there was a transcript. Sorry about the dodgy formatting. Did my best.

Eric Foner wrote:

Now, one other thing about this language is it applies to states, right? No state may do this, that, or the other thing. What about individual or private discrimination? Can a restaurant refuse to serve you because you're black? That's not the state, right? The state is not doing that. I mentioned this before that Senator Rand Paul last year said, well, you know the Civil Rights Act of 1964, yes, if banning racial segregation mandated by law is -- then sure,
the 14th Amendment, you can't do that.

But what about private discrimination? He said, that's bad, I don't approve of it, but that's not state action. This is the "state action" principle. State action. One of the worst constitutional
concepts, I believe, that ever has been built into our jurisprudence
by the Supreme Court. We will see down the road how it goes in.

It creates this false dichotomy between what they call de jure and de facto discrimination, let's say, discrimination by law and discrimination by individuals. And even when the Supreme Court upheld the Civil Rights Act of 18 -- of 1964, banning private
discrimination by public, you know, by restaurants, hotels,
they did not do it under the 14th -- they were afraid to do it
under the 14th Amendment, because of that state action clause.

They did it under the Commerce Clause. A black guy is trying to drive around the South selling Fuller Brushes. He can't find a motel. He can't find a restaurant. That interferes with commerce, so therefore Congress can ban it. That's absurd. That's not why they passed that law, so guys can go around selling Fuller Brushes.
They passed it because private discrimination is a -- is itself a
stigmatization of certain groups of American citizens and ought not to be allowed.

And moreover, every single private -- it's not a question of whether you have someone in your home -- every single restaurant, every single hotel is licensed by the state, is protected by the state.
You think when fire breaks out they're going to say, hey, I don't want the fire department because I'm a private place. No. They rely on the state. They're regulated by the state. The distinction between state and private is much murkier than the jurisprudence has, you know, has led us to believe.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

The thing I've never liked about the argument around the science of human sexuality is that it presumes human sexuality requires some kind of special justification.

"It's what I'm into and I'm not hurting anybody doing it" more than suffices for heterosexuals.

But I know I'm dreaming. Things like enjoyment of life and consent don't inform the other side's position on much of anything. I'm sure one of them will be along with a form for me to fill out approving of his or her sex life directly.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Drejk wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

Guy on the radio was saying that it's not discrimination because "I can't marry a dude either, so it's even."

Oh, well what fools are we, then. Ridiculous.
I thought that utterly dumb pseudo-excuse was completely refuted already...

It's the argument used in Loving v. Virginia too. Just in case anybody missed what happened to the segregationists.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tinkergoth wrote:
Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
Limeylongears wrote:
Hello. My name's Limey and I've started reading Gor books again.
Crowd of Inebriated Perverts: HELLO, LIMEY!
Is one goblin really a crowd?

I'm not inebriated but am perverted enough for a crowd, I think. Or at any rate I was reading the Complete Book of Necromancers last night. That's got to count for something.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Reading for Foner's class has taken up most of my time. I haven't finished either of these because they weren't entirely assigned and I wanted to juggle the assignments better rather than power through. Also suspect future chapters for the class on the war itself.

Inhuman Bondage: The Rise and Fall of Slavery in the New World by David Brion Davis. This book is amazing. It's got everything. Slavery in Africa. Enslavement of Slavs in Spain and Italy. The origins of antiblack racism. The abolitionist movement in the British Empire. Haiti. It's like a candy store but with slavery.

The Republic in Crisis by John Ashworth. Started with grand claims about being a new interpretation that placed slave resistance at the center of the narrative. It hasn't lived up to the hype, though it does have a lot more intellectual history than the standard survey of the same material. It suffers badly from spending more time alluding to events so it can skip ahead to reaction to them rather than explaining what happened, which is fine for me but I suspect would leave readers taking it cold with barely a high school level understanding of the major issues. There's room for books like this, but William W. Freehling did it much better, if in about five times as many pages and without handling the Northern side.

Coming up:
The Counter-Revolution of Slavery: Politics and Ideology in Antebellum South Carolina by Manisha Sinha
The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery by Foner.

Probably not going to buy it:
The Civil War and Reconstruction: A Document Collection. Couldn't order a copy from the local bookstore and Amazon wants quite a lot for a thirteen year old collection of primary sources, some of which I know from lectures that I've read already. I iron-assed my way through the whole damned Appeal of the Independent Democrats, TINY print, and this thing only has an abridgment. If assignments were by document name, I wouldn't even think of getting it.

Need to get back to:
Bleeding Kansas: Contested Liberty in the Civil War Era by Nichole Etcheson.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Another obstacle to more reading.

I hope the books will forgive me while I nerdgasm and try not to be too creepy where Eric Foner might see.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Limeylongears wrote:

I haven't, but I'll keep my eyes peeled for that one. Thanks!

Just to be clear, I don't find myself thinking while reading Thongor, "Yeah, it's *OK*, but how, how I wish there was more genocidal racism in it" I imagine I'd be pretty disturbed if I ever read, say, The Turner Diaries

I could make some suggestions from nineteenth century American political writing if you really want to corrupt your internal monologue. Sometimes it's very darkly funny when a random proslavery argument just pops into your head, with most of the key phrases as direct quotes.

Does make me very happy that telepathy isn't real, though. I'm socially unacceptable enough without the extra help.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
samerandomhero wrote:
So the horde side is quiet but has spikes of activity, I believe more are getting active on it. Sean routinely hops through and one of the members of this board is active on it. I will leave it to him to decide if he wishes to announce himself.

*looks to both sides*

I suppose that's me. :) Full confession:

Oodledoodles, goblin warlock
Eatstheveal, tauren druid
Momorka, orc shaman

Been thinking about getting the warlock into some flex raids on reset days. His ilevel is in the high 540s (mostly upgraded timeless gear and LFR drops) so I think I'm geared enough.

My Ally 90 turned out to be a character that I've never gotten the hang of playing so he mostly comes out when we do transmog or other runs of older instances. Currently working on a hunter with the expectation that she might become my new ally main and see more action.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
The problem is, Kirth has such an bad footnote habit that he'll go to some really ugly places to get his fix. Look, Kirth, this isn't an intervention, but just answer this question for me: When's the last time you enjoyed yourself without reading any footnotes?

Not cool, man. Don't get between a guy and his footnotes.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Samnell wrote:
How, in the name of my best bud Satan and my own personal torture cellar, does this jackass account for the precious little democracy and freedom which prevailed in the most Christian of continents, Europe, between Constantine and the Enlightenment?
He claims (with a straight face) that after Rome fell, Christian monasteries preserved all remaining knowledge and goodness, until it could spread to the rest of Europe again.

So the Christian roman empire was a model of democracy and freedom. Then after the Christian barbarians destroyed Rome and established their own Christian kingdoms, they stopped being Christian and only people in the monasteries were Christian. They apparently reproduced by budding. They never had secular authority. And they had to wait until the power of institutionalized religion was pretty thoroughly broken and subdued by the state until new Christians arose outside the monasteries.

That is so stupid that I think that trying merely to conceive of the scenario may have permanently damaged me.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I know I will regret asking. I know the stupid will burn me so. I blame this all on frying my brain on Kansas census rolls today, tallying up what each qualified voter said was their state or nation of origin.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

He cherry-picks some partial quotes from the American founders (including a number that have been shown to have been outright fabrications); from a Christian Chinese guy he met once; and himself in a previous book (yeah, I read the footnotes) -- then uses these to supposedly support his claim that Christianity is both a necessary and sufficient condition for democracy and liberty.

How, in the name of my best bud Satan and my own personal torture cellar, does this jackass account for the precious little democracy and freedom which prevailed in the most Christian of continents, Europe, between Constantine and the Enlightenment?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Chris Hedges accused of plagiarism.

It couldn't happen to a more sanctimonious guy.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lissa Guillet wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
While I was growing up I was amazed that the country that had this as their defining statement ever had slavery. But it is unreasonable to expect perfection. It is simply our job as a society to move toward perfection. Even though we never expect to be perfect, the struggle toward it makes us better and better, and that is enough.
It was somewhat contentious, even in it's time but because of the problems of passing the Declaration of Independence which basically required not just a majority but a unilateral commitment from each of the colonial states. It was a statement of war against the King and the southern states wouldn't sign without the express promise of slavery not being outlawed. Much of the northern and midatlantic had already abolished slavery, though many slaves still existed in the north by good old boys looking the other way. One of the few constitutional clauses that couldn't be ammended was the requirement that no laws hindering slavery would be passed federally until sometime in the early 1800's.

Minor historical derail:
In 1776, all thirteen colonies had slavery and none had abolished it. Pennsylvania was the first state to abolish, in 1780. Massachusetts slavery was invalidated by a court decision in 1783.

The institution never quite caught on so well in New England as it did in the South, for the obvious reason that the South had the prime tobacco land. Outside the southern colonies, slavery also did pretty well in New York and New Jersey. New Jersey still had 16 slaves on the books due to its very gradual emancipation law in 1860. They didn't even pass that law until 1804.

Those laws left lots of slaves in place, to serve a term before freedom and liable to be sold off into a jurisdiction with more slavery-friendly laws before their freedom dates came. Between legal cutoff dates and mandatory service to a certain age, most states outside New England still had residual and superannuated slaves up until the 1840s when separate legislation freed the lot.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Time to bleed one more goat!

But I'm out of goats?! Nooooooooooo!!eleven

2 people marked this as a favorite.

*looks at list*
*scrolls a bit*

My item!

*hugs a goblin*

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:

Do you often pose like that, Sam?

[Crosses fingers]

I don't normally wear that much clothing when I pose.

Rothfuss and I are of similar girth (and also given name, as it happens). His hair is a little bit lighter, quite a bit curlier, and more resident on the head. Given what is on display, I suspect that the hair he has on his head is simply distributed in other locations on me. Perhaps if he can be induced to shave, it will transpire that we share a single supply of hair and mine would redistribute.

But black boxer-briefs? No. Ok, maybe in spandex but that's a for special occasions kind of thing and I drape my glorious corpulence over things far too often to call it special.


1 to 50 of 292 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.