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

ShinHakkaider's page

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber. 1,477 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,477 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I too would would pay for a SNES version of this as long as it had Chrono Trigger and both Final Fantasy games. Also Street Fighter II.

You know so I can FULLY relive my early nineties.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dragon78 wrote:

Nintendo will be releasing more units on December 5th. It will be better to wait for that. Though I do find it interesting that this item will not be available for black Friday.

That's the first thing that crossed my mind as well. For $60 too? It seems that they underestimated the demand for this product.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Wow, and now all of the original Magnificent Seven are gone.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Wraithguard wrote:

Finished up playing through Far Harbor this weekend. Love the atmosphere, probably my favorite part of Fallout 4.

An interesting and mentally taxing little side thing to do was breaking the firewalls for DiMA's 5th memory fragment. The reward is pretty cool though after you track them all down. A bit heavy though.

HOLY CRAP YES to breaking through DiMA's firewalls, especially that last one. I was obsessed with it for a few hours this weekend. Far Harbor was definitely my favorite part of Fallout 4.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Please don't waste anybody's time 'testing' players whether or not their characters will be 'overpowered and abusive.' These are both incredibly subjective and a problem with Pathfinder, not the player.

Have an open dialogue with your prospective play3rs about your expectations for the game. IF you are highly anti-optimization and want to ensure your players will squirm and struggle for every desperate victory (and frequently die or be saved by D+Mq-Machina in the form of fudged dice or NPC saviors) then tell them so upfront.

No matter how many people might turn you away if you're honest up front, It's far faster for finding long term ppayers than by 'testing' them in table play.

At no point did I ever state that I DIDN'T declare expectations of my players. I told my present group UPFRONT, I do things this way because I don't know you and I don't know how you play.

Your approach, as condescending as your tone is, has been tried before. Even with full statement of what expectations are at the table BEFORE play starts tends to either be ignored or forgotten once play starts. Sometimes it's an honest mistake of players just falling into common habits and / or play style. Other times it's players with the mindset of "I'm just going to do what I want and the GM/DM is just going to have to deal with it."

Either way my present group, who I've been running games for, for a little over five years (which I think counts as a long term group, I could be wrong...) seems to have been fine with it.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If I'm starting a new game with people that I dont know and have never played with I limit to core rulebook only at first. At this point it's not the classes that I'm monitoring, IT'S THE PLAYERS. because bottom line it's the player that decides to abuse or cheese rules not the character. If I have players who can play CRB classes without being overpowered and abusive then later on down the line I start opening up whatever options that they want as long as it's not deliberately game breaking or abusive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

My favorite thing about Pathfinder are the support and options.
It also helps that there are deliberately characters that look like me in the campaign setting. By deliberately I mean purposefully and prominently displayed in the materials.

The other thing that I really like about Pathfinder is that you can learn alot about the world through the adventures. You never really have to read ANY of the campaign setting material. You can just read through or play the AP's and have a fairly good feel for the world and it's history. I welcome the fact that it's a game and not some history course.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Headfirst wrote:

Here's a quick question for all the Pathfinder fans out there:

How long do you think Pathfinder (and Paizo) would stay in business if they stopped publishing "crunchy" rules material (races, classes, feats, spells, etc) and instead focused on "soft" material like expanded settings, modules, and adventure paths?

Maybe they wouldn't last very long. But then again a lot of the same people who complain about bloat are the same people who want their crunchy options. People will complain about EVERY and ANYTHING and do so loudly and obnoxiously and STILL turn around and purchase the crunchy product. And the bottom line is if I'm looking at people complaining about rules bloat is this:

Are these people still BUYING the product in sufficient numbers to warrant the continual production of more product like this?

If the answer is YES, then keep producing.
If the answer is NO, then do something else.

I find that voting with your wallet gets the point across a lot more directly. Or maybe that's just me...


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jay707 wrote:

So a player in a game that I am also in took 1 swift action and 2 immediate actions in one turn for saving throws...etc, and I called him on it. He then said "You are purposefully trying to kill my character." and got angry at me for "rule lawyering him to kill him."

Note that I do the same thing to myself, having to look something up after my turn was done and wasn't sure, even if it was not beneficial to myself and speaking up about it. Including anyone else that isn't aware or playing the game correctly.

Should I just shut up and let people do whatever and let them bend the rules to their favor?

You are the BEST KIND ON RULES LAWYER. The impartial one. The one who questions his/her own accounting of the rules as well as others. I can't remember all of the rules of this game so I rely on the more rules saavy members of my table and I'm fortunate to have at least two players like yourself who correct me when I'm wrong and who hold each other accountable at the table.

My advice is no, DON'T silence yourself. Present the rules as they should be if you see otherwise but then let the DM/GM be the final arbiter.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
Robbie breathed a lot of life into ghost rider(lol just realized what I wrote) and provided an excellent storyline. I love blaze and ketch, but their storyline has been going on about 10 years too long, although I *really* enjoyed the multiple spirits of vengeance storyline, which I'm thinking robbie easily fits into.

Seriously THIS.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Aberzombie wrote:

As many folk around here may have read, I have a love/hate relationship with Grant Morrison. For every awesome White Martian, he's given us a s+%+ass abomination in Damian Wayne. For every brilliantly run on Doom Patrol or Justice League, he's given us crappy runs on Batman and horrendous stories like Final Crisis. Some people may disagree with my assessments, but I could give two f%#~s less what you think.

So, onward to one of my "loves"......

DC One Million - The Justice League of the 853rd century comes back in time to visit the (then) current Justice League, inviting them to switch places so they can welcome the return of Superman Prime from the heart of the sun. Ageless villains (some old, some new) make a play against both Justice Leagues. Plots and plans spanning millennia come into play. Hilarity ensues. That's about as much of the plot as I want to give away, in case anyone wants to read it. The basic story was contained in a four issue miniseries, with a bunch of additional parts being told in special #1,000,000 issues of various other titles.

There were a lot of things I like about this one:

I loved the title concept, that if DC maintained a regular publishing schedule for that length of time, it'd be the 853rd century when they published their one-millionth issue (not sure what it was based on, but I think several major titles from 1998). It worked well with the entire story concept, giving the writer plenty to work with on how things would have advanced.

I loved the villains. Without giving too much away, the use of Vandal Savage was brilliant, and (to me) making excellent use of a vastly underrated bad guy. Then there's Solaris, The Tyrant Sun, an artificial sun with immense power and a very bad attitude. What I found most interesting about that concept was that Morrison took the one thing that actually gives Superman all his power (a yellow sun) and managed to turn it into one of Kal El's biggest enemies.

I also loved that one of my favorite characters, Martian...

DC One Million is one of my favorites.

I love that Morrison revisits The Tyrant Sun in his ALL STAR SUPERMAN...


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:

Just came back from the IRON FIST panel at New York Comic Con (I was fourth row center, because PURE LUCK).

Not only did they show a bunch of pretty lengthy clips (including one of Coleen Wing beating the ever loving crap out of some guys in a cage fight...) and do mini interviews with the cast but they also bought out Jon Berenthal and Debroah Ann Wohl and announced that they've started filming the Punisher last week.

Then after THAT another surprise, they bought out Charlie Cox, Kyrsten Ritter, Mike COulter and Finn Jones. All of the DEFENDERS together for the first time.

Then they announced who's playing their main antagonist (but NOT who the antagonist actually IS):

SIGOURNEY WEAVER.

That audience lost it's collective minds when she walked out and commenced with a chant of "HO-LY S**T!!" much to the amusement of the cast gathered on stage.

It was a good fun panel and a perfect way to end my third day at NYCC.

I will be at booth 2854 tomorrow. Come by if you can.

Didnt see this until late yesterday man. Sorry. It's been a BUSY weekend...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Thomas Seitz wrote:

Shin,

They confirmed that Sigourney was the villain/antagonist? Cause I just heard they said "She's in the tv show." Not like as a specific role.

Jeph Loeb started with "It is my enormous pleasure to be able to tell New York Comic Con, and obviously the rest of the world, that we've not told you who the villain of the Defenders is. "

"And the reason is for that is because we needed to find somebody who can take on all these guys *waves toward the Defenders* that you would really be happy with."

"SHE has been, Golden Globe, Emmy Nominated, Oscar nominated, she doesnt require any introduction anywhere she goes in the world. She'll be joining the Defenders cast, ladies and gentlemen it is my disctinct pleasure to introduce Ms. Sigourney Weaver."

That was pretty much his entire introduction transcribed from the video that I shot from my phone.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Just came back from the IRON FIST panel at New York Comic Con (I was fourth row center, because PURE LUCK).

Not only did they show a bunch of pretty lengthy clips (including one of Coleen Wing beating the ever loving crap out of some guys in a cage fight...) and do mini interviews with the cast but they also bought out Jon Berenthal and Debroah Ann Wohl and announced that they've started filming the Punisher last week.

Then after THAT another surprise, they bought out Charlie Cox, Kyrsten Ritter, Mike COulter and Finn Jones. All of the DEFENDERS together for the first time.

Then they announced who's playing their main antagonist (but NOT who the antagonist actually IS):

SIGOURNEY WEAVER.

That audience lost it's collective minds when she walked out and commenced with a chant of "HO-LY S**T!!" much to the amusement of the cast gathered on stage.

It was a good fun panel and a perfect way to end my third day at NYCC.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
The other thing is I wonder if Luke Cage takes place AFTER the events in Civil War. Because the HammerTech (*STOP!! HAMMERTECH!!*) they were using to stop and one case actually go toe to toe with Luke made me wonder if we were seeing precursors to CapeKiller technology. I wonder if INFINITY WAR starts out with the government using modified Chitari technology to hunt down supers...
FedExs several pairs of parachute pants to Shin's house

BURN.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The other thing is I wonder if Luke Cage takes place AFTER the events in Civil War. Because the HammerTech (*STOP!! HAMMERTECH!!*) they were using to stop and one case actually go toe to toe with Luke made me wonder if we were seeing precursors to CapeKiller technology. I wonder if INFINITY WAR starts out with the government using modified Chitari technology to hunt down supers...


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Delightful wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
I too like the realistic villains we have gotten so far. They are scarier than anything I have seen in a comic so far.

I think the Purple Man from Jessica Jones still holds the crown as the most scariest villain Marvel has produced so far, but Luke Cage certainly has the most realistic...

At for least for the first part of the season.

** spoiler omitted **

The scariest thing about Killgrave was that his power made his special brand of scociopathy especially horrible. People were literally THINGS to him . They were acquired and discarded as such. And the fact that he took almost no responsibility for any of his actions? WOW. Utterly horrifying.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
I too like the realistic villains we have gotten so far. They are scarier than anything I have seen in a comic so far.

Killgrave and the Kingpin in particular. Kingpin being somewhat sympathetic and Killgrave being an almost complete sociopath. Didnt really care for Diamondback's motivation and really kinda liked both Cottonmouth and Shades. Black Mariah was a nice evolution though and I'd venture to say that the women in the show are waaaaay more fleshed out than the men. I found my self understanding and associating more with Misty Knight than Luke Cage. I love the slow build of Black Mariah and Shades almost parasitic relationship.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Aranna wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Aranna wrote:

They ARE... is there a male word for it?

So let me understand something, if you are not married and have a consentual sexual relationship with someone, you are a slut (or male version of a slut)? Correct?

I have stopped using slut... it has too much emotional baggage. I switched to "loose moral relationship". No. I don't consider consensual sexual relationships which are clearly evolved from a close loving relationship and clearly evolving toward marriage to be loose moral relationships (although I have a fairly liberal interpretation compared to strict religious doctrine). I DO find casual sexual relationships between friends, one night stands, or two people just getting each other off with no commitment to be "loose moral relationships".

Ah. Okay, understood. Thank you for clarifying.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Delightful wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Aranna wrote:

They ARE... is there a male word for it?

So let me understand something, if you are not married and have a consentual sexual relationship with someone, you are a slut (or male version of a slut)? Correct?
Yeah, sure, that totally makes sense.

Hey man, I'm just trying to clarify her statement. You know, making sure that I'm understanding clearly what she's saying.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Also I might want to point out that the Christian God is himself an adulterer and a manwhore by your own definition, having both slept with impregnated a woman who was already married and with whom he had no intent or desire to have a loving relationship with.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Aranna wrote:

They ARE... is there a male word for it?

So let me understand something, if you are not married and have a consentual sexual relationship with someone, you are a slut (or male version of a slut)? Correct?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Rysky wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Hama wrote:

Plus he was obviously in love with Reva. So not just sleeping.

He had sex with Jessica because she is the only one whom he can cut loose with, and there was tension as well.
As for Misty, sometimes you get really attracted to someone and that results in sex.

None of these women is a slut. Plus there is no such thing. People enjoy sex.

Not into the whole slut shaming thing AT ALL.

BUT the fact that she's calling these women characters sluts is a little disturbing considering that we've only seen:

Riva WITH ONE MAN.

Jessica WITH ONE MAN.

Misty Knight WITH ONE MAN.

Claire Temple WITH ONE MAN (Matt Murdock).

So, how are they sluts again?

Going off of Aranna's viewpoint because they had sex outside of marriage/with no intention of marriage.

I'm wondering if she made these same complaints during the two seasons of Daredevil and the one season of Jessica Jones? Or during any of the other countless TV shows where people sleep with each other without being married?

Or did she wait until a clearly Black themed show with unrepentantly black characters to to trot out the moral high ground?

I wouldnt have brought this up if not for her comment about absent black fathers further up thread.

to be fair, Cage is having the most sex of any character so far across three shows. He's getting laid. Part of this is depicted as old school blacksploitation sex, as observed by my wife, and different from the "the is the only person I can have sex with without hurting them" sadly only briefly presented in Jessica Jones or the tortured "pleasure is bad" Catholic aspect of daredevil.

However this is NOT Black Dynamite where he has fathered an entire neighborhood. Sex is happening responsibly and fairly, with cage turning down offers for sex as well as pursuing others. This is the best of both worlds for most. But he is definitely portrayed as a sexual character.

Uh so is Matt Murdock. I mean Foggy is ribbing him pretty consistently about him using his blindness to pick up women. I'm trying to remember if he actually sleeps with Karen Page but he's been with Claire and Elektra during the course of both seasons right? So that's three women if I am correct?

So are we giving the white guy and his paramours a pass and coming down on the black guy and his paramours to the point of labeling the women who are with Luke as 'sluts'. Even though they've each to our knowledge on the shows, only slept with Luke?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Hama wrote:

Plus he was obviously in love with Reva. So not just sleeping.

He had sex with Jessica because she is the only one whom he can cut loose with, and there was tension as well.
As for Misty, sometimes you get really attracted to someone and that results in sex.

None of these women is a slut. Plus there is no such thing. People enjoy sex.

Not into the whole slut shaming thing AT ALL.

BUT the fact that she's calling these women characters sluts is a little disturbing considering that we've only seen:

Riva WITH ONE MAN.

Jessica WITH ONE MAN.

Misty Knight WITH ONE MAN.

Claire Temple WITH ONE MAN (Matt Murdock).

So, how are they sluts again?

Going off of Aranna's viewpoint because they had sex outside of marriage/with no intention of marriage.

I'm wondering if she made these same complaints during the two seasons of Daredevil and the one season of Jessica Jones? Or during any of the other countless TV shows where people sleep with each other without being married?

Or did she wait until a clearly Black themed show with unrepentantly black characters to to trot out the moral high ground?

I wouldnt have brought this up if not for her comment about absent black fathers further up thread.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
CBDunkerson wrote:
Now... if you wanted to complain that Marvel presented all three women as manipulative liars who were using Cage you'd have a legitimate gripe.

THIS. RIGHT HERE.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Hama wrote:

Plus he was obviously in love with Reva. So not just sleeping.

He had sex with Jessica because she is the only one whom he can cut loose with, and there was tension as well.
As for Misty, sometimes you get really attracted to someone and that results in sex.

None of these women is a slut. Plus there is no such thing. People enjoy sex.

Not into the whole slut shaming thing AT ALL.

BUT the fact that she's calling these women characters sluts is a little disturbing considering that we've only seen:

Riva WITH ONE MAN.

Jessica WITH ONE MAN.

Misty Knight WITH ONE MAN.

Claire Temple WITH ONE MAN (Matt Murdock).

So, how are they sluts again?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The sex is BAD but the constant brutal violence is okay.

*Looks over at the Crusades...*

Okay I guess...


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
Sundakan wrote:

...Nobody is, and nobody has.

"Things have gotten better" is not the same thing as saying "things are perfect". You're just arguing for the sake of argument at this point because you're just loudly agreeing with the people you're yelling at.

"better" is a loaded term as the line that defines it is going to be in very different places for very different people.

It was my mistake in thinking that was apparent in what I was saying. Thanks for clarifying, Freehold.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sundakan wrote:

...Nobody is, and nobody has.

"Things have gotten better" is not the same thing as saying "things are perfect". You're just arguing for the sake of argument at this point because you're just loudly agreeing with the people you're yelling at.

Didnt we have a mutual agreement to ignore and or not respond to each other on these boards?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:


Separate but (not really?) equal is still around.
Wage discrepancies based on race is still around.
Disenfranchisement of the black voting block is still around.
Race based hiring is still around.
Race based housing is still around.
Disproportionate convictions and sentencing of black people is still around.

They're around but they're not as prevelant as they used to be.

Wolf, You're saying that these things arent are prevalent as they used to be and to be fair they arent.

They are still very far from equal though and I think that's the issue. You want to have harsh draconian drug laws? fine. But make sure penalties are applied equally across the board.

Dont tell me that hiring practices are fair across the board when white employers are more likely to hire a white guy with a felony record over a black guy with no record and an actual degree.

Dont pay me less in the same position as a white guy because of my skin color.

When I'm looking for an apartment to live in as long as I can pay the rent or in the case of buying a house can provide the down payment and pay the mortgage dont just take me to the lower income or black part of town.

And dont execute me at a traffic stop when my hands are raised in the air if you wouldnt do so to a white guy in the same situation. Or if you are going to execute ME, treat white guys with the same disdain for life.

FAIR. EQUAL.

That's LITERALLY all we're asking for.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
You can't openly be proud to be a bigot anymore, that's a non-trivial change.

Wait...What?!?!

That's an ENTIRELY trivial change. Also? *looks over at the Republican nominee for president and his base of white nationalist/alt-right supporters* I'm not really sure that that's accurate?

Separate but (not really?) equal is still around.
Wage discrepancies based on race is still around.
Disenfranchisement of the black voting block is still around.
Race based hiring is still around.
Race based housing is still around.
Disproportionate convictions and sentencing of black people is still around.

All of this stuff still exists. So what someone will think twice about calling me a name to my face? I WANT to know who my enemies are. The thing is: these people are my co-workers, my doctors, my childs' teachers and administrators, our judges, OUR POLICE OFFICERS.

It's a little funny to me that people in this country especially the right wingers are so obsessed with Jihadists living among us or coming here to disrupt their way of life and kill them for no reason. Thing is? I know EXACTLY what that fear an anxiety feels like.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
So Gandhi and MLK were peacefully assassinated and the protesters were violent?

EXACTLY.

Peaceful protests arent going to stop you from getting shot in the face.

Or having hoses turned on you. (*Because you know there were a whole bunch of whites back then, just like now, who said it was the protesters fault for instigating and starting trouble).

Or having dogs turned loose on you (*Because you know there were a whole bunch of whites back then, just like now, who said it was the protesters fault for instigating and starting trouble)

Or as in the case of Medgar Evers SHOT IN THE BACK in his own driveway. and upon being taken to the hospital was denied entry BECAUSE OF THE COLOR OF HIS SKIN.

But people are determined to talk about how great peaceful protest is...

It's called laying your life on the line for a cause you believe in... the kind of thing we venerate soldiers for. A lot of people did just that during the Civil Rights Movement.

And for what? Alot of the same crap they were fighting and dying for is still going on. Segregation is still a thing more so than ever except now its redlining and gentrification. The police are still murdering unarmed men women and children the only difference is now it's being captured on video because everyone has a camera phone. The laws changed but people found ways around the laws to do what they want to anyway. I ask again, what did these peaceful protestors die for?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Fergie wrote:
Norman Osborne wrote:
Stuff

Neither of those incidents are Al Sharpton's doing in any way. He had a tangential role in both. I don't stand by everything Al Sharpton says, but his message has always been non-violent. If you attempt to help the poorest people at the bottom of society, not all of them are going to be paragons of humanity. I think it would be fair to criticize Al Sharpton for going after publicity, but that is absolutely necessary in a civil rights movement.

Just out of curiosity, what civil rights leaders do you think have done a good job of improving race relations in the last couple of decades?

I'm not siding with Normal Osbourne at all here, but he's not wrong about Al Sharpton. He DID incite that incident at Freddy's. I don't think that his intent was to cause deaths but he had to know that what he was saying that would incite passions in a way that would not end well.

That being said, Al Sharpton ONLY exists because white politicians stood by and did nothing whenever racism reared its head in the black community. Whether it was a place like Freddy's or police brutality instead of stepping up and speaking up for their constituents they did nothing. They could have easily blunted his influence but they couldn't be bothered. I personally dont care for Sharpton, he's an opportunist and that's being mild. But like him or not he gets the publicity and he gets results.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
So Gandhi and MLK were peacefully assassinated and the protesters were violent?

EXACTLY.

Peaceful protests arent going to stop you from getting shot in the face.

Or having hoses turned on you. (*Because you know there were a whole bunch of whites back then, just like now, who said it was the protesters fault for instigating and starting trouble).

Or having dogs turned loose on you (*Because you know there were a whole bunch of whites back then, just like now, who said it was the protesters fault for instigating and starting trouble)

Or as in the case of Medgar Evers SHOT IN THE BACK in his own driveway. and upon being taken to the hospital was denied entry BECAUSE OF THE COLOR OF HIS SKIN.

But people are determined to talk about how great peaceful protest is...

OTOH, I suspect without the commitment to non-violence on the mainstream of the movement it would have been even worse and not have ended even as well as it did. Black people couldn't have won the armed struggle it would have turned into.

Non-violence resistance is a valid tactic in the face of stronger oppression. It will be met with violence. Rule of thumb: If you're not being met with violence, you're not accomplishing anything.

My issue with non-violent resistance is that it naturally favors the oppressor. It allows them to do heinous things and then the results only come after someone has been further hurt or killed. This from a country that doesn't hesitate to go to war to fight for it's interests. It's a do as I say not as I do. And it sucks.

Besides, non-violent protest is getting BLM nowhere. Nothing is changing for the better. The populace at large wants people of color out of sight and silent. We can be celebrities and sports stars as long as we don't speak out of turn. And if you're a person of color who doesn't have the benefit of celebrity you're a troublemaker. Thing is there are ALOT of scared black people in this country. The thing is people are only going to be scared for so long before they realize that they have very little or nothing to lose in fighting back.

Reminds me of something that was said by two characters is Tarantino's The Hateful Eight:

Major Marquis Warren: ...Just how many n*gg*r towns did ya'll sack in your fight for dignity in defeat?"

Chris Manix: Oh my fair share black major! 'cause when n*gg*rs are scared that's when white folks are safe!

and later on in the same movie

Major Marquis Warren: You got no idea what it's like being a black man facing down America. The only time black folks is safe? is when white folks is disarmed.

At one time both of these were kind of true. Maybe back in the 1870's. Maybe in the 1950's too. Not so much now though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Knight who says Meh wrote:
So Gandhi and MLK were peacefully assassinated and the protesters were violent?

EXACTLY.

Peaceful protests arent going to stop you from getting shot in the face.

Or having hoses turned on you. (*Because you know there were a whole bunch of whites back then, just like now, who said it was the protesters fault for instigating and starting trouble).

Or having dogs turned loose on you (*Because you know there were a whole bunch of whites back then, just like now, who said it was the protesters fault for instigating and starting trouble)

Or as in the case of Medgar Evers SHOT IN THE BACK in his own driveway. and upon being taken to the hospital was denied entry BECAUSE OF THE COLOR OF HIS SKIN.

But people are determined to talk about how great peaceful protest is...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
I do not remember any instance of violent protest that led to actual long-term changes in society.

The american revolution?

John Brown moved the country towards the civil war and emancipation.

Malcom X's bad cop to Martin Luthor Kings Good cop.

MLK was seen as an evil commie until X came along.
MLK was seen as an evil commie until he was good and safely dead. Then he could be recast as a saint, because it was safe to do so. He was hated by a huge chunk of white America. They celebrated his death.
As I recall when he was shot, he had spoken to a labor meeting the night before. King was a labor as well a race advocate which earned him damnation from racists and capitalists alike.

THIS.

People wanted him dead already. But when it looked like he was going seriously unify and advocate for labor as well? That put him on the fast track for a bullet. Because you know you cant have poor / working class whites teaming up with black folk and kinda have them realize they're kinda in the same boat. They gotta break that sh*t up...


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There's a cycle here.

People want only peaceful protest.

But peaceful protest that really doesn't impact them or inconvenience them in anyway. Otherwise it's "How dare they protest?!?"

So peaceful protest that doenst inconvenience or offend anyone, gets nothing done.

So the same systematic issues dont change OR they get worse.

But that's not their problem because unless the media is covering a riot they don't notice peaceful protests. Or community meetings. Or mothers and family members marching to protest the violence in their communities.

Then the wellspring of rage and frustration bubbles up after another police shooting, where yet again the victim gets blamed, so peaceful protests begin anew only to be ignored until violence happens so then people can go "look see? theyre nothing but savages! It's their own fault that this happens to them!"

And so on, and so on, and so...


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Also we've seen what peaceful protests have gotten us.

Colin Kaepernik is the most disliked man in the NFL.

For taking a knee.

he's received STEADY death threats. He's been called a N*GG*R, repeatedly by the same white fans who were cheering him a few years ago.

This is an organization where the fans have rallied around accused multiple rapists, domestic abusers, racists, homophobes and in one case an accused murderer.

The high school and college players who have done the same have received a steady stream of death threats.

Peaceful protests have been met with reporters and right wing radio hosts encouraging their listeners to RUN THEM OVER if they're in the street.

But tell me again how well peaceful protest works against an enemy that has no empathy.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Aranna wrote:

There are some people with strange ideas about what cops can do.

The short answer is cops CAN DO anything they want. And they fully expect you to behave whether you committed a crime or not. NOBODY is going to stop a cop from robbing you or killing you, they ARE the authority. Your only recourse is a law suit and the hope that you can convince a judge or jury that the story the police are feeding them is a lie. The fact that there is a thin blue line means they give each other the benefit of the doubt on all stories true or not. In MOST areas of the country this isn't an issue. People mostly get along and the police are respected. But in areas with a belligerent population (for whatever reason) the police can operate more as an occupying force. It's sad but they CAN DO it. How many of the downtrodden can afford to sue them in response? It isn't just a black issue either it's a poor issue. You are treated like dirt if you have no money.

Can it be fixed in those areas? No. Well yes but only if you catch it early enough. Once people start training their kids to resist and defy then NO AMOUNT of corrective measures can fix the problem. These areas will be lawless occupied zones till the population (cop and rioter alike) are forced to change though some massive outside thing.

WOW.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Abraham spalding wrote:
I pointed out before and I will again how it seems just having a weapon and being black is grounds for police to treat you as a hostile force.

I think that "just having a weapon OR being black is grounds for police to treat you as a hostile force" is even MORE accurate and worrisome considering the number of unarmed black men and women who have been murdered by the police. Several people in this thread alone seem just fine with this mode of thought. A poster upthread even referred to this 15 year old girl as a WOMAN instead of what she actually is, a teenager and a minor. That's a way that makes it easier for people to criminalize her and feel justified in whatever treatment she receives from LE.

It's a commonplace tactic that's used especially in regards to black children. Reduce or eliminate empathy for black children by referring to them and treating them as adults, reduce empathy for black adults by thinking of them as sub human or in some case super human beasts.

It's definitely how LE and their supporters view black people in the US.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
But that won't play with the Al Sharpton crowd.
Please clarify.
It's very simple if and when it comes out that the woman was trying to conceal drug posession by resisting police, that fact won't matter to the man who makes his living by raising a ruckus. Look up the Tiwana Brawley case.

So let me see if I'm understanding your point correctly.

You are justifying the treatment of this 15 year old girl who had just been in an accident, who may have been hurt and or in shock, afraid of the police. With a false accusation of rape and the ensuing bruhaha / fallout of that.

I'm asking flat out if the fact that she may have had a dime bag on her warranted her treatment at the hands of these officer, yes or no?

Her treatment was justified by the fact that she was attempting to leave the scene of an accident she caused and was in defiance of the orders of a police officer. Her posession of contraband if true, only leads to background context. If a policeman gives you an order, you're supposed to obey.

So by that logic they would have been justified in shooting her dead for resisting yes?

Here's the problem that I have with this scenario. She's just been in accident. She ran through an intersection and hit someone's car. Fine. Doesnt change the fact that she'd just been in an accident. The fact that she refused medical attention and just wanted to go home may or may not have had anything to do with the weed found on her. She just may have been in shock and SCARED and just wanted to go home. And the police are not a reassuring, de-escelating force they are to be feared and AVOIDED. So I'm sure that probably played a part in her frantic need to get away as well.

But I hear what youre saying, none of that other stuff matters. It's very black and white. Obey. and nothing bad will happen to you. Except THAT'S NOT TRUE either. Complying with the police will get you beaten or just as dead as if you would comply.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
But that won't play with the Al Sharpton crowd.
Please clarify.
It's very simple if and when it comes out that the woman was trying to conceal drug posession by resisting police, that fact won't matter to the man who makes his living by raising a ruckus. Look up the Tiwana Brawley case.

So let me see if I'm understanding your point correctly.

You are justifying the treatment of this 15 year old girl who had just been in an accident, who may have been hurt and or in shock, afraid of the police. With a false accusation of rape and the ensuing bruhaha / fallout of that.

I'm asking flat out if the fact that she may have had a dime bag on her warranted her treatment at the hands of these officer, yes or no?

EDIT: has anyone even mentioned Al Sharpton in regards to any of these cases? Or is that just the usual alt-right response to everything involving black people and police brutality. Because I honestly havent heard a peep from Sharpton concerning any of these cases and I'm IN NYC.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
But that won't play with the Al Sharpton crowd.

Please clarify.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

I have the feeling that police officers in the States are incredibly stressed, tense and even scared

Again, I point to a portion of the civilian populace who are for the most part UNARMED and have to worry about being murdered for no reason by the police. And a lack of empathy by the general population at large

for the murdered persons because of perceived affiliation with criminality because of skin color.

Police may be stressed, tense and scared, but they are also armed and protected by not only each other but by general public opinion that they are justified in killing whoever they want as long as they are of a certain skin color.

I apologize if my words dismissed the victims' pain. It is not my intent

What I find very dangerous is scared people with weapons who feel justified in using them

Also I am not sure that general public opinion backs such killings. I am under the impression that the judicial system's response is a greater culprit here

I hope my words express my thoughts adequately. I feel very unsure as a non-native speaker about how people might understand them. Please point it out if I hurt people's feelings. It is really not my intent :-(

I didnt think that you were being dismissive at all nor did I intend to come across like that. Apologies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:

I have the feeling that police officers in the States are incredibly stressed, tense and even scared

Again, I point to a portion of the civilian populace who are for the most part UNARMED and have to worry about being murdered for no reason by the police. And a lack of empathy by the general population at large

for the murdered persons because of perceived affiliation with criminality because of skin color.

Police may be stressed, tense and scared, but they are also armed and protected by not only each other but by general public opinion that they are justified in killing whoever they want as long as they are of a certain skin color.

1 to 50 of 1,477 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.