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

ShadowcatX's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 5,022 posts. 9 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 5,022 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Andoran

Cr500cricket wrote:
One reminds said daughter that Han shot First.

That was my first thught as well. Also an undead revenant Greedo would be an awesome costume.

Andoran

thejeff wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Love the attitude that when police abuse their powers we should just give in.

Post right above yours. Give in at the moment, as you are in personal danger. Document exactly what happened. Report it and publicize it once you're safe.

Too many people think that "in the moment" confrontation is the best path.

It rarely is.

I'm skeptical of the results of your approach, but I'll add, if you're going to do this: Document it. Record the encounter, audio at least, video if you can do it without further inciting the officer. Or do so if the officer is harassing someone else.

Because if something does go down, it's your word against his and the jury and everyone else in the system will believe him. And the bad cops lie.

It depends what you think the desired results are. While I don't like it nobody's method is much more likely to geet a peperson home safe than escalating the siuation.

Andoran

Scythia wrote:
When a person threatens only themselves, the result of a failed negotiation should be that they hurt themselves, not that the police hurt them.

We don't know exactly what happened, a very possible scenario is the guy decided to force the cops to kill him rather than kill himself and thus turned his weapon on them.

Faelyn wrote:
Well guys, I'm not going to get into this anymore with you all. As a police officer, I know more about the type of situation than you ever will. And to be honest, I'm tired of defending officer's decision against a public that already made their mind up about the matter.

That's certainly helpful.

Andoran

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Not that I am trying to drum up support for Comrade Dingo's position, but I believe "no ex post facto" is still part of the American Constitution.

I believe that applies to things that are made illegal. Courts can't make something illegal (for the most part) they just tell you what you did was illegal.

Andoran

4 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:

Everyone optimizes their characters. When you assign your stats, or roll anything other than 3d6 in order, you're optimizing. When you choose a class, you're optimizing. When you pick feats, you're optimizing.

Some people simply optimize to a greater or a lesser degree than other people.

As everyone is aware and as someone feels obligated to point out every time it comes up.

Well did you also know that you could save 15% on your insurance in 15 minutes by switching to Geico?

Andoran

Everyone optimizes their characters. When you assign your stats, or roll anything other than 3d6 in order, you're optimizing. When you choose a class, you're optimizing. When you pick feats, you're optimizing.

Some people simply optimize to a greater or a lesser degree than other people.

Andoran

Caineach wrote:
According to the reports I saw, he was arrested with a small group for failure to disperse after the vast majority of the protest he was with dispersed. He talked about intentionally going out to get arrested. That pretty much defines a~$$$$@ in my book.

So civil disobedience = a+&&%!* in your book?

Andoran

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I came into the thread expecting to see an example from Princess Bride or some other classic. I was very pleased to see multiple classics. But to see a quote from Street Fighter, that takes the cake. (Probably one of the only 2 good lines in that movie.)

"Never go up against a sicilian when death is on the line."

"I'm sorry. If your quarry goes to ground, leave no ground to go to. You should have taken my offer. Or did you think none of this was your fault?"

Andoran

Umbranus wrote:

I'm asking myself where to look for the rules on the abilities you named. Is vitalist an archetype or some 3pp class or what is it?

Is spirit of many a class ability?

Vitalist is a 3rd party class, a psionic healer.

Andoran

I think that like a wizard, his uses per day are limited. Beyond that, the vitalist is a one trick pony to a very large extent, they heal, and they do so very well, but they are lacking in virtually every other area. Just because they are able to keep up with scaling damage that doesn't make them op.

However, double checking the player's math and checking for errata doesn't hurt either.

Andoran

The rules forum isn't really about what is reasonable. You'd have better luck in advice.

Andoran

Many campaign settings, even from dnd, are not suited to the amount of magic pf and 3.x has bent over backwards to create. Look at Ravenloft and Dark Sun, both settings that are generally well loved and low magic, yet full of amazing adventure. It is that feeling that I think people are trying to reclaim with low magic settings.

Beyond that, magic in 3.x and pf isn't all that magical, it is largely a matter of pluses and gold pieces. Even spell magic doesn't have much of an air of wonder to it. Honestly, I'd rather have pretty much any form of magic over dnd magic, mage the ascenscion, exalted, even paladium fantasy.

Andoran

If it is true, I'm thrilled. Clean(ish) and plentiful energy for everyone (ie. those who can afford it, but maybe the rates will drop a bit).

Andoran

My thoughts on the topic can be explained by a quote from the movie Let Me In. (Best vampire movie in a long time, if not ever.)

Let Me In wrote:

Owen: But how old are you, really?

Abby: Twelve. But... I've been twelve for a very long time.

Andoran

Sorry for the late response, didn't notice any replies after my last post until now.

Pendagast wrote:
based on the TV show, no… several people are NOT simply following Ragnar only for wealth.

If Ragnar said "I'm going to raid the west, but we're not going to bring back any wealth or slaves and we're not going to try and gain any land over there" do you think they'd go with him? The whole point of raiding (what Ragnar does) is to gain wealth. That's why he went west in the first place, more wealth and less defended.

Quote:
Rangar being a "jerk" is a bit off center, the whole "rift" between floki and ragnar was an act to lure in King Horik, and it worked.

I know. That was very intelligent of him, don't you think? If only the rift between him and his brother, and him and his wife, were equally imaginary. Pretty low charisma if the 2 people you're closest to both turn their backs on you at some point because you're a jerk. . .

Quote:

and technically, according to legend, Ragnar was 'seduced' by Aslaug… something the Tv show sort of…poorly portrayed… they just made him look like a horny cheater.

Aslaug is supposed to be an enchantress, but the TV series is going "low magic" like game of thrones.

Again, doesn't matter, we're basing it on the tv show.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Like several others before me, I recommend the evangelist cleric archetype, though if you can get early entry into mystic theirge that may be better in the long run.

Andoran

Pupsocket wrote:

The daily Hex flexibility is not all that. And the BAB and proficiencies barely matter.

Basically, they can both spam Slumber; the Shaman has a vastly superiour spell list, the Witch has Major Hexes and Split Hex.

I don't think a vastly better spell list is accurate at all. Witch spells constantly get under valued, but really they have top tier wizard spells at every level, just not the wealth of options a wizard has.

Andoran

How do you not know what the feats in the core rulebook do? Do you just get your information on them online and never acually read the book itself?

Andoran

Faelyn wrote:
Rysky wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Faelyn wrote:
proves your uneducated
I hate it when people say things like this while failing to use proper spelling.
Ah, the your and their families. My most hated nemeses.
ShadowcatX, if you'll retread that sentence you will notice that is the correct spelling. The sentence reads "your uneducated (TL;DR) stance." Oops? So before you go on a tangent, perhaps pay attention a little better?

Except uneducated cannot modify stance because that makes no sense. I could have taken the poster to task much harder, but I didn't feel the need. Next time I will not be so lenient if that is what you are requesting.

Andoran

Orfamay Quest wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Really, it depends on the setting and the deities. If they're jealous and petty like the gods of old were, then they probably wouldn't share. If they're the kinder, fluffier deities worshipped now days then it probably wouldn't be unheard of, but would likely be extremely rare. After all, if you had an entire world (or worlds) worth of the population to choose a very small scattering of people from, don't you think you could find people that would be entirely faithful, rather than having split loyalties?
I didn't realize that deities were allowed only a fixed number of clerics and paladins. Is there an exchange rate? Can one give up three inquisitors for an extra cleric?

Deities do not have unlimited power. Ergo, they cannot bestow power on an unlimited number of people. Besides, if deities just passed around divine magic campaign worlds would be significantly different than they are.

Andoran

The story might have been updated. When I initially posted it, the county claimed it was illegal for them to pay for the child's medical bills, now in the wake of a federal investigation and public outcry it is legal and they will be happy to do so, pending the outcome of the lawsuit. (I assume if the family is awarded money for medical expenses the county will not cover medical bills but you know what they say about assumptions.)

Eta: The county not paying portion comes from our favorite goblin's first link. However, the story has been updated since I posted it, with information about the feds looking into it.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Faelyn wrote:
proves your uneducated

I hate it when people say things like this while failing to use proper spelling.

Andoran

Michael Brock wrote:
They didn't respond to shoot him. They responded to save his wife and talk him out of the incident without it escalating. He choose to go off the deep end. You said we never hear of cops shooting other cops to save innocent people. I think they shot a person to save an innocent person, the other cop's wife.

They shot him to save their own lives, he was shooting at them and pointing his gun at them. What I am asking is where are the good cops when a cop, on duty, goes psycho and guns a kid down in the street.

Quote:


Again, people like to twist words to make it fit their story. A bad cop was threatening to kill his wife and started to shoot at the responding officers, placing innocent civilians in the area at risk. Its what you asked for. Also, you will notice, he shot at them, they tried to talk to him instead of returning fire immediately, and when he continued pointing his weapon at them, they then shot and killed him. They didn't just show up with guns blazing.That was just a quick example I thought of immediately. If I did a Google search, I could probably find a dozen more examples.

I will point this out, he threatened his wife and actively tried to kill them and they still tried to talk to him. Do you think that might have been because he was a cop? They sure haven't showed that kind of restraint in Ferguson, Saint Louis, or in this case with the no knock warrant.

Andoran

Michael Brock wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
You know what you never hear and would sell tons of papers? "Cop shoots other cop to save innocent." That would be a cop who would deserve to be honored. Where are the good cops when the bad cops are gunning people down in the street?

It happens more than people think. It just doesn't get the same media coverage.

Here you go from two weeks ago.

Ok, shooting someone who is shooting at you and shooting your partner to save someone else are TOTALLY different things. Do you not see that?

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You know what you never hear and would sell tons of papers? "Cop shoots other cop to save innocent." That would be a cop who would deserve to be honored. Where are the good cops when the bad cops are gunning people down in the street?

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

The child being injured wasn't a "punishment" the child didn't deserve to be injured, nor did the parents deserve to have their child injured.

However, when you pick a stupid place to put your kid, things might happen to them. No child deserves to get mauled by a dog, but decide to put one's playpen in the back yard with the dog, and that could be the consequence.

And if that happened, I would put down the dog that did it, wouldn't you?

Andoran

Really, it depends on the setting and the deities. If they're jealous and petty like the gods of old were, then they probably wouldn't share. If they're the kinder, fluffier deities worshipped now days then it probably wouldn't be unheard of, but would likely be extremely rare. After all, if you had an entire world (or worlds) worth of the population to choose a very small scattering of people from, don't you think you could find people that would be entirely faithful, rather than having split loyalties?

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Michael Brock wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:


Maybe its just me, but if you're wielding a weapon I'd say you have a responsibility for what happens with that weapon.

Let's use another example and see if it helps clarify. And yes, I understand it is fictional but I'm trying to see if it helps clarify.

A doctor diagnoses a patient and says they have symptom XXXXX so what is wrong with that person is XXXXXX. They relay that information to the surgeon. The surgeon then cuts the person open to start performing the surgery on what he was advised was wrong. When he opens the person on the table up, he sees that the info he was given was wrong, that the person does not have XXXXXX, and he immediately tells the nursing staff to start sewing this person back up. When the nursing staff starts seeing the person back up, the patient goes into cardiac arrest and dies. Who should be held accountable? The doctor providing the incorrect info that led to the surgery, or the doctor who was performing the surgery based on the information he received from another professional in his same field? It was, after all,the tools used to cut the person open and the complications that arose from that, that caused the person to die, not the original doctor that provided bad info.

That may not be nearly as good of an example as you think it is. The surgeon's ass is absolutely in the sling for the botched operation that killed the patient. (Which isn't to say that the other doctor won't be facing a malpractice suit as well.) That's why surgeons don't operate on someone else's word alone, they meet with their patient, go over everything with them including all the risks and possible complications. Heck, they'll even write on the limbs of their patients so as to not operate on the wrong limb.

Andoran

Quote:
Please restate your argument. What you stated confused me in what you were asking me to rebut.
ShadowcatX wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Who's arguing? Thread's about Georgia SWAT teams; saw another story about them killing someone through gross negligence. Shared it.
I can post at least 40+ news stories where GA SWAT teams made good arrests. Do we really want to do tit for tat?

If someone randomly murders 1 person, but lets 40 others live, does that mean that everything is okay or should that someone be locked up for life?

"Oh, but they do their job and don't kill innocent people 80% of the time" is not an acceptable response.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Michael Brock wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
thejeff wrote:
One was following procedure and the other was not?
So the procedure is you're not responsible for people who are injured by your grenades but you are for people who are injured by your bullets? S$&&, sign me up for being a grenade toting cop.
I didn't say that and you know it. The procedure is for the detective and the commander to do their job, make sure all of the information they are providing to a swat team is accurate, and relay that information.

But, over the top rhetoric aside, that really is what it comes down to, isn't it? If you use a gun and you injure someone, you're held accountable for that. If you're the one throwing the grenade, and you injure someone, the person who didn't get proper information is the one held accountable for that.

Maybe its just me, but if you're wielding a weapon I'd say you have a responsibility for what happens with that weapon.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Michael Brock wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Who's arguing? Thread's about Georgia SWAT teams; saw another story about them killing someone through gross negligence. Shared it.

I can post at least 40+ news stories where GA SWAT teams made good arrests. Do we really want to do tit for tat?i can also post stories and videos of officers who hesitated, even when they were absolutely in the right to shoot, and are now dead. Why aren't you posting any of those stories as well?

As I said, if they were in the wrong, or if the info they were given was wrong, those people who did shoddy police work should absolutely be held account able.

If someone randomly murders 1 person, but lets 40 others live, does that mean that everything is okay or should that someone be locked up for life?

"Oh, but they do their job and don't kill innocent people 80% of the time" is not an acceptable response.

Can you name an incident where someone randomly murdered 1 person but let 40 others lI've? If so, link it and we will discuss.
Every killer ever in the history of mankind? Do you really want me to start linking cases where mass murderers have next door neighbors that are like "I never would have thought" or "he seemed so nice"?

Mass murderers don't usually kill neighbors. They go into a mall food court or a theatre or whatever and kill I discrimation. What I *think* you are referring to is a serial killer. They actually single out a specific type of victim and actively seek to kill that type of victim and not really deviate.

Also, please don't say "every killer in the history of mankind." For example, It's an inaccurate statement. Someone who kils a person because they struck the vehicle when they were driving drunk doesn't fit the argument you are trying to present.

So you can't rebut my argument, so you argue with my grammar. . .

On a side note, thank you for the shot gun explanation, that makes sense.

Andoran

thejeff wrote:
One was following procedure and the other was not?

So the procedure is you're not responsible for people who are injured by your grenades but you are for people who are injured by your bullets? S@!$, sign me up for being a grenade toting cop.

Andoran

How much money did he make off his kickstarter? Would "enough that he doesn't need the money he gets from advertising nearly so much as he did before the kickstarter" be a safe statement?

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Michael Brock wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Who's arguing? Thread's about Georgia SWAT teams; saw another story about them killing someone through gross negligence. Shared it.

I can post at least 40+ news stories where GA SWAT teams made good arrests. Do we really want to do tit for tat?i can also post stories and videos of officers who hesitated, even when they were absolutely in the right to shoot, and are now dead. Why aren't you posting any of those stories as well?

As I said, if they were in the wrong, or if the info they were given was wrong, those people who did shoddy police work should absolutely be held account able.

If someone randomly murders 1 person, but lets 40 others live, does that mean that everything is okay or should that someone be locked up for life?

"Oh, but they do their job and don't kill innocent people 80% of the time" is not an acceptable response.

Can you name an incident where someone randomly murdered 1 person but let 40 others lI've? If so, link it and we will discuss.

Every killer ever in the history of mankind? Do you really want me to start linking cases where mass murderers have next door neighbors that are like "I never would have thought" or "he seemed so nice"?

Andoran

Michael Brock wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:

Im going to hazard a guess that there are a lot more crooks out there breaking the law than there are corrupt cops fabricating evidence.

Let me give the opinion of someone who has walked a mile in those shoes. I was a crimes against children and special victims detective for almost 10 years.

Let's get this on topic. . . How many of the crooks you got in those 10 years hit children with grenades? Of all those, how many were told "meh, its fine, you don't need to go to jail"?
I assume you either missed or ignoring where I said people who do shoddy police work should be held accountble. It's back on the last page.

How is "I threw a grenade into a room without knowing who was in the room" different from "I fired a shot gun and hit someone after the slug passed through 2 walls"?

Andoran

Michael Brock wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Who's arguing? Thread's about Georgia SWAT teams; saw another story about them killing someone through gross negligence. Shared it.

I can post at least 40+ news stories where GA SWAT teams made good arrests. Do we really want to do tit for tat?i can also post stories and videos of officers who hesitated, even when they were absolutely in the right to shoot, and are now dead. Why aren't you posting any of those stories as well?

As I said, if they were in the wrong, or if the info they were given was wrong, those people who did shoddy police work should absolutely be held account able.

If someone randomly murders 1 person, but lets 40 others live, does that mean that everything is okay or should that someone be locked up for life?

"Oh, but they do their job and don't kill innocent people 80% of the time" is not an acceptable response.

Andoran

Michael Brock wrote:

Im going to hazard a guess that there are a lot more crooks out there breaking the law than there are corrupt cops fabricating evidence.

Let me give the opinion of someone who has walked a mile in those shoes. I was a crimes against children and special victims detective for almost 10 years.

Let's get this on topic. . . How many of the crooks you got in those 10 years hit children with grenades? Of all those, how many were told "meh, its fine, you don't need to go to jail"?

Andoran

I wonder if the story was "Israeli soldier burned Palestinian baby with grenade not charged" how people would feel.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LEPLEY wrote:

In all seriousness, MOST law enforcemnt make clearer better decisions and warrants are evolving to be more restrictive making police have more info before serving them. It only takes one bad decision on the fly and now ALL cops are bad. AND its the judges that approve the warrants so if there is bad info, they should request more and not approve it.

For craps sake people i come here to talk about GAMES from one of the best companies out there! Take your fergusen talk and rants to the proper forums, this is supposed to be a fun place to hang out!

This is the proper forum, not like I posted this in rules help or advice. Although, I could make an advice thread out of it, we have tech stuff now. . . A paladin, acting on orders from his higher ups throws a flash bang in a baby's face and then refuses to provide healing, should he fall?

That aside, who are you to tell us what we can and cannot talk about? No one twisted your arm and made you come into off topic, no one put a flash bang to your child's head and forced you to read this thread. If you don't like it, leave.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
Aberzombie wrote:
In Alien: Resurrection (1997), Sigourney Weaver actually managed to sink the basketball into the hoop backwards on the first take, even though she was not supposed to or intended to. The shot was almost ruined because Ron Perlman broke character because he was so amazed.
The best part of that movie.

Any time Joss starts to get a big head all someone has to do is remind him of Alien: Resurrection.

Andoran

bugleyman wrote:
Caineach wrote:
These swat team assaults on innocents are hard to keep straight.
Well these so-called "innocents" should have known better than to get in the way of the police! ;-)

Innocence proves nothing.

Hail the Emperor!

Andoran

Rynjin wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
I like how everyone is blaming the police instead of the scumbag methheads using their child's playpen to barricade the door.
To my understanding the people in the house had nothing to do with drugs and the person they were actually looking for was found in a different house later on.
If the house had nothing to do with drugs, no "drug residue" would have been found.

It was the right house, but the people inside of it were relatives (as Durngrun mentions) and had nothing to do with the drugs.

Quote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
That aside, I'm sure even druggies, if they knew that grenades were going to be thrown at them, wouldn't have their children in the line of fire.

You don't know many drug addicts, do you?

Not that it's a bad thing if you've managed to avoid them your whole life.

A few pot heads, but that's all I really have any experience with, and they would never do anything like sacrificing their child to stop a bust. I'm going to guess this was probably a bit higher on the drug food chain so no, no experience.

Andoran

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I'm not entirely certain how a flash bang clears out an obstruction. I would like to know their reasoning behind that.

I suspect it was more of an "oh crap, we didn't breach and they can grab guns, better do something to keep them off balance".

Andoran

Rynjin wrote:
I like how everyone is blaming the police instead of the scumbag methheads using their child's playpen to barricade the door.

To my understanding the people in the house had nothing to do with drugs and the person they were actually looking for was found in a different house later on.

That aside, I'm sure even druggies, if they knew that grenades were going to be thrown at them, wouldn't have their children in the line of fire.

Andoran

How is this situation any different than if a cop was shooting a gun and hit some random, innocent person?

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
You know, Burke, I don't know which species is worse. You don't see them f***ing each other over for a g@+@~@n percentage.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:

A federal judge has ruled that during the protest being forced to keep walking rather than being allowed to stop violated some individuals' rights.

Link

So its okay for them to shoot you, with bullets or tear gas, but telling you you have to keep moving is against the law. . .

'Merica!!!onety one

Well, they pretend to have an excuse when their doing the shooting.

"Your honor, they stopped walking, and I wasn't allowed to tell them to keep walking, so I shot them."

"Oh, ok. Case dismissed." *bangs gavel*

Andoran

A federal judge has ruled that during the protest being forced to keep walking rather than being allowed to stop violated some individuals' rights.

Link

So its okay for them to shoot you, with bullets or tear gas, but telling you you have to keep moving is against the law. . .

'Merica!!!onety one

Andoran

So, SWAT members who through a flash bang grenade that landed in a child's play pen where he was sleeping and that seriously injured him during a raid on that house are not being charged. What do you all think?

Linky

Andoran

Elric

1 to 50 of 5,022 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.