|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Usagi Yojimbo wrote:
That doesn't mean they weren't coerced into getting it.
Honestly I like the idea but I'm not sure about the execution, experienced combatants are going to be able to read their enemy's movements and react to even minor changes on the fly, your system doesn't allow for that much. Beyond that penalizing martial characters by making full attacks risky is bad.
I'll usually try and ignore it, but if I can't I will say something once, after that I'm going to go get the staff. It just isn't worth it to confront people now days, you never know when someone is one comment away from pulling a knife or a gun.
Despite the down playing of very serious side effects and some very barbaric lines of treatment, keep in mind, these medicines generally (not always of course, but much more oftten than not) are very good for the people that need them and often lead to a signifint improvement in the quality of a person's life.
Would you equally object to a doctor giving someone who was bleeding out (say from trauma) a transfusion if they had a braclet saying they opted not to take another individual's blood for religious reasons? We'll even say the person is unconscious so you can't simply ask them.
Eta: Or, to avoid the religious topic assume they are under the influence and cannot consent to a life saving, emergency, procedure.
Freehold DM wrote:
The person whom I got my information on ECT from received it less than 2 years ago. And saying that person hated it, is not nearly strong enough language to describe how the person felt and still feels about it. To this day the person experiences anxiety simply plugging something into an electrical outlet, to say nothing of the damage it caused.
With respect to antidepressants, Yeah, there is a suicide risk attached. There is also a weight gain risk attached. The suicide risk has given most meds in that category a considerable and deserved black eye, as that particular type of med(can't remember the exact category) was providing energy to counter the lethargy associated with depression while doing little to help with the actual depression. There's also a dosage related issue there, but that is something that leads to arguments more often than not, so I'm not really going to go into that.
My point wasn't to try and say that anti-depressants (or any psychiatric medications for that matter) are bad, far from it. I am, however, trying to show that they can and sometimes do have SERIOUS side effects that don't deserve to be waved off with "a pound or two" and "inability to achieve sexual release, which you probably weren't doing anyways cause you're depressed" type comments.
Forcing someone to take meds? I know in the State of New York, you have to go to court to prove that, and at the end of the day, someone can decide to NOT take meds at all, and deal with the consequences on all levels. That can be a long path, and if there's a whiff of violence you could find yourself committed involuntarily. Things have changed a great deal since my first day at work to today in that area, and while I think things have improved, I don't think they are perfect yet, I do think they are moving, glacially, in a direction where everyone involved- patient, family, medical staff- has a voice and a part to play in the decision.
It isn't just going to court. It is court, doctors visits, and quite possibly other consequences (as you mention), none of which are cheap or easy. And here in Oklahoma, I'd say things are a long LONG way away from being perfect.
ETA: I am not a health care professional.
@Sissyl: You know (or should know) that I respect you, but I think you are seriously downplaying the risks associated with medications and forced treatment. Please correct me if I'm wrong on any of the following.
@Everyone Else: The following is not the norm, however, I'm going to discuss it because it does exist.
Let's talk about depression, Sissyl mentioned the side effects include gaining a pound or two. First, "a pound or two" is possible, but going from a normal, healthy weight to morbidly obese is also possible, and can bring its own serious health (both physical and mental) risks. Second, one of the biggest risks in anti-depressants is an increased risk of suicide (usually in the first week or so of treatment) when people are regaining their motivation to act, but their vision is still colored by a lack of hope.
But there are treatments far more distressing than being forced into anti-depression medication. Say the anti-depressants don't help (and they don't help everyone), you may get to be graduated to ECT* which has a whole host of permanent side effects including permanent brain damage (which is actually the goal of ECT) and permanent nerve damage.
If you don't know what ECT is, you might know it by its more common name, electric shock therapy, aka. where they strap you to a table, face down so you don't choke on your own vomit, and try and destroy enough of your brain so you're not depressed any more.
Also, the process of getting someone declared incompetent against their will (which is what the whole force them into medical treatment relies upon), is neither easy nor cheap (especially if you want it to be done quickly, which if there's serious problems you would want). You'll have a leg up if the person is an immediate relative, but if the person is functioning (which many people with depression and mania are) then you're in for a serious struggle and you're not guaranteed to win, even if you're right.
BNW and I agree on something. The world has gone mad.
Can anyone explain what a piece of "honest" game journalism would look like? I honestly can't really conceive of it. What can a game review actually be except for an extension of game advertising? Are honest game reviews supposed to be objective or something? How would that even be possible if the review is literally just the opinion of the journalist? What else could it possibly be?
Go to endzeitgeist.com and read some of his reviews of third party products for pathfinder.
Scott Betts wrote:
In a perfect world where everything is simple and provable in court and won't interrupt on going police investigations,then probably. But here's a question, why is it being exposed? I watched the first few minutes of the first video, you know what I got? That a woman had sex with some people outside of her relationship and the vlogger doesn't care. Don't know who the guys were, don't know if they pressured her into it or if she offerred in exchange for something, etc.
Ok, ignoring the fact that there is no solid evidence this happened beyond the word of an extremely biased source...
Welcome to the real world. This (and much worse) happens. A lot. In every industry. The food you believe safe, the drugs you believe will make you well, the brake pads that will protect you and your loved ones, even our precious table top rpg community, they all have flawed and outright bad people working on them. Trust no one.
CR 5 ish encounter for a party that's ECL 7 or so. They should manage just fine, though as always with axes there's a chance of Crit, you're dead. (Not a high one, with 4th level characters, if they were smart enough not to tank Con, but it is there.)
The race builder is very, VERY, badly balanced. I would not use it to try and make a balanced race, nor allow my players to do the same. Instead, use it as a starting off point, and then make tweaks to balance as necessary.
Simon Legrande wrote:
They say 1:68 children has some form of autism, am I the only one who sees that as utterly ludicrous? Am I the only one who thinks too many people just want a drug to make the problems go away?
What are your qualifications to make that decision, because you are going against hundreds, if not thousands, of doctors, and thousands of hours of research.
I ran a soul thief for a bit and virtually all my feats went to expanded knowledge so I could steal the best powers from other lists. Boat loads of class features, and the best (and most spammable) powers = winning combination. That was a while ago and the vitalist might have been updated since then however, not that having energy missiles or astral constructs is ever a bad thing.
Given that they're the same person, does it matter?
Also, the idea of beauty is very different across the globe, as seen here.
I would probably rule that he can no longer summon his eidolon at all. If I thought this wasn't an attempt on his part to game the system, I might offer im a one time conversion to a normal summoner.
Am I the only one bothered by the fact that the assesment has a 31% pass rate?
That aside, basic algebra is extremely useful in every day life, but it is so second nature to most of us we don't even think about it. (I have 50 dollars to spend on concert tickets. Concert tickets are $10. How many can I buy? = [10x=50, solve for x.])
Then we're going to have to agree to disagree, because IMO: If someone is trying to kill you, you have every right to try and kill them back. The fact that they might have a legitimate reason to try and kill you doesn't invalidate that. Everyone, man, woman, child, soldier, etc. has a right to defend their own lives.
There is no need to try and make this personal, drop with the attacks.
Holy HELL man.. CONTRABAN? Contraban? I'm sorry, big brother israel thinks you can use that chicken sandwhich for TERROR CALORIES! If you're not on the brink of starvation they you could fight back! And we can't have that! You must be starving or the terrorists might almost put up a fight!'
What do you think happens to food that gets smuggled in? Do you think it goes to the poor who wouldn't otherwise get it, starving children perhaps? Or do you think it goes to the people who can afford it (and who wouldn't be going without anyways) or who are willing to do whatever it takes to get it, basically allowing Hamas to make slaves of their own people?
There are two reasons to smuggle, humanitarian and for profit. If Hamas isn't doing it as humanitarian aid, then it is for profit, and it doesn't matter what is smuggled, all it amounts to in the end is dollar signs (and that very likely translates to rockets fired at Israel).
No. It doesn't. Its ok to smuggle because NO ONE, no government, not your own, and certainly not the militaristic expansionist government of your occupiers, has the right to tell you that you can't have a damned sandwhich
Governments do it all the time my friend. "Sorry, your population is getting too fat, no more selling large sodas at ball games." "Sorry, raw chicken is deadly you can't serve it." (Its only deadly because we don't enforce standards to make it safe.) "Sorry, milk has to be refrigerated, you can't serve it warm." (Again, proper pasteurization techniques would allow milk to be stored on a shelf without problems.)
I never defended this land grab. I think you misread something.
ETA: I know what you're talking about. I was referring to the creation of Israel as a whole, not this particular land grab. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear in my previous posts.
Bleh. Six of one, half a dozen of the other then. Thank you for the link.
And Hamas "resistance fighters" have a duty not to involve civilians, yet it happens. They have as much responsibility for the deaths of their people as the Israelis.
That said, you're right about the practicality of what happens. What Hamas really needs is a damn good PR departmment in the EU.
And "every member of Hamas" was a terrible choice of words.
If you are asking me is it a justification to attack Israel, then sure, but they will lose, and cause more of their own people to die. This will also ensure the loss of land is permanent, and likely what Israel wants.
Honestly, what they should do is appeal to the U.N., and to Israel's courts. But if they go that route, any violence is going to ruin their claim, not that it is likely to be honored anyway. Maybe they could bbuy it back, a kind of rockets for land deal. Sucks to have to buy what you should already own, but it is probably their best chance.
Personally, I'd want to salt the entire thing and tell them to choke on it, but that would be a huge waste of resources and probably go over less well than rocket attacks.
If you have evidence they aren't being given basic human rights after being arrested I would like to see it.
In which case you can't argue that Israel doesn't have a right to invade and kill every member of Hamas they can, if one is at war, they both are.
Eta: If the food isn't being given away it is no different than any other contraband. Claiming that it is okay to smuggle it because it is just food implies it is being done as a humanitarian thing, not a for proffit which is used to buy weapons thing. To me, at least.
Please note the tunnels your article discusses are the ones going into Egypt, not the ones going into Israel. It is a lot easier to smuggle in a country that isn't quite as hostile, and uch harder to use tunnels that go away from your foe to attack said foe.
Never the less, I don't disbelieve that some food travelled through them, smuggling anything is big money. Including slaves, or brides, as your article so delicately puts it. Just because food got smuggled doesn't mean it was given away.
Do you think the kidnapped victims were given due process? Were they given a phone call you think? Allowed access to a lawyer? Given bail?
Oh really? I said that huh? How about providing a quote of me saying that? That would be awesome.
Do you think the teenagers Hamas killed would rather have been kidnapped or arrested?
Pink Dragon wrote:
Territory that they, themselves stole from the Israelis, who stole it from the people who inhabited it before them, etc. What makes Palestinian claim to the land more legitimate than Israel's?
Pink Dragon wrote:
Do you have proof that members of Israel's government capture and kill Palestinian teenagers, because Hamas has admitted that the kidnappings were the work of their members? If not, I assume you'll be retracting your comments.
You're the one making the claim that the terrorist organization that was using the illegal tunnels into enemy territory for humanitarian purposes, the onus to provide proof is on you. I don't have to disprove anything.
I'm sure that's what the tunnels were for, sneaking food into the country. Right. . . If you believe that I've got some ocean side property I'll sell you on the cheap.
Beyond that, I wonder, was the gain worth provoking Israel and forcing their hand and the thousands of people who have died from such?
/sigh. Ok. Hitler could motivate people by speaking to them. He could rally them to his cause against their better judgment and well, they were happy to kill for him (less happy to die for him, I suspect, but they still did it and did it in droves). The people aren't fighting and dying for Ragnar the majority of the time, they're fighting to amass wealth. Do you see the difference?
Ok, first off, go actually read the definition of Charisma, because "gut instinct, the willingness to take a chance, and spirit of adventure" is not even remotely close to it.
Second, one does not need to study and learn to have a high intelligence. Education and intelligence are not the same thing, heck they barely even live in the same house.
The compass thing was an invention of the TV show and wasn't used by the original viking explorers. Who navigated on instinct, luck and a whole lot of hope.
What's your point? It doesn't matter that the TV show isn't 100% accurate, we were requested to build the guy off the TV show. In the TV show he is smart.
It was a complete gamble/gut feeling and also based on rumor from others who had done it long ago.
So from studying history? Oh look, another skill point I missed. Thank you. Yet another reason for him to have a high intelligence.
Tried to update my post above, but was 1 minute too late pushing submit and lost everything. :(
As to skills Rragnar would have profession farmer (because he is, you know, a farmer), probably profession sailor as well, knowledge of religion, geography, local, and maybe tactics, diplomacy, sense motive, perception, and of course, linguistics.
Compare that to the skills of the average person in his group / tribe / whatever. He is significantly more knowledgable and more skilled. Hence, above average intelligence. If anything, I might have shorted him on intelligence, maybe that is where his second racial bonus should go if you go that route.
As to charisma, people aren't following him because they love him, he doesn't make speeches that make their hearts break out in song. They follow him because he is what they want in a leader and he brings them wealth.
Compare that to Lagartha, who after she murdered her husband in front of his people they put her, a woman and an outsider, up as their earl rather than some man from among their own. That is charisma. Ragnar doesn't have that.
As to his brother's stats, I'd dump wisdom, drop intelligence, to raise his strength and con higher, and definitely put the second racial bonus in a physical stat.
Lots of people in the show have faith, but no one saw what Ragnar did. Beyond that, it wasn't faith that got him across the sea these several times, nor faith that planned the successful raids. I hope you're not trying to say he can't be smart because he has faith.
And yes, anyone can put a point into linguistics, but you should notice nobody else actually did but Ragnar, again, foresight and planning, halmarks of intelligence.
Ragnar doesn't really upset the status quo, going west was a biggie, for sure, but after that he's done mostly what was expected of him. Not like being ambitious was considered heretical or anything.
Secret Wizard wrote:
I'm not sure I agree with your definition of high charisma, but even by your definition let me say:
Like his wife who left him or his kid who went with his wife? Or his brother who betrayed him?
You all realize that he constantly rubs people the wrong way, enough so that they are constantly trying to kill him?
And low intelligence? The guy who figured out that the west didn't drop off a cliff, and who spent his time learning a second language because he had the knowledge and forsight that it might be useful has low intelligence?
As to him being a slayer, that's out of bounds, O.P. specifically said Viking, which fits.
I'd probably go:
It may not seem that impressive, but when you thinkabout the fact that most people top out at 13 before racial, then you see he's pretty tough. I might even trade my feat in for another bonus somewhere. (Racial is already in str, con maybe?)
Can I make a suggestion for a rule in future editions of the rule book?
"If you cannot ask a rules question with a straight face, or if the DM laughs so hard on hearing it s/he can't breathe, the answer is no." I can't help but feel that would take care of so many rules threads that pop up just because the writers assume that everyone is smart enough not to try and twf with a bow.