|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I would play Kyria, mother of magic, ruler of the sky, the winged tyrant, etc etc etc. Lawful Evil, though not proud of it, she sees the wind and the wide open sky as a weapon, a way to coerce, force and compel the pitiful masses into a semblance of order and decent lives. Hers is the way of conquest, with shadows of flying islands and warships darkening the lives of her new subjects. She delves deeply into magic, but only of useful kinds like battlefield magic, air elementalism, and magic to control. And at the core, she wishes the world would stop forcing her to intercede on the behalf of people who don't know what is best for them, letting her explore and finally relax.
Her estate is a multi-level construct of flying cities, built in white marble and decorated with gold, but full of people who live in misery despite her best efforts to teach them the rules, discipline and control they need for an efficient life.
Kyria's favoured weapon is the composite longbow. Her domains are Magic, Air, Rulership, and Law. Her symbol is a crowned angel with large white wings. Her worshipers are winged elves, nobles, wizards, and would-be conquerors.
Conversion rates between coins of various metals were really an insane headache through history. True, the powers that be did not understand it well at the time, but the principles of supply and demand still worked. Different coins were used for different things, and the different classes got different coins as payment, the value of each shifted dramatically with say, new mines, and a fixed conversion rate was a distant dream.
Focusing on defense means you are as relevant as a rock on the battlemat. And if you want to prevent people going after your healer, either make sure they can't see him, make sure they can't because the way is blocked, or mind control the enemies. Killing the healer is sort of the kind of tactical option you would need mind control to remove.
See what people wrote above? Yeah. GET PROFESSIONAL HELP. A prescription for after-patent drugs (like most antidepressants) is actually dirt cheap. And the question you ask is the wrong one. No dad means kids who will always have to deal with that. ALWAYS. The relevant question is whether a depressed dad is better or worse than one who was depressed but got better and is now healthy. You know the answer to that one, don't you?
Trust is something people expect too much. In a somewhat complex world, the people the heroes meet will have differing motivations. This may be taken by some to mean they are all untrustworthy. However, there is a deeper issue here. If you make a shades of gray world, you really need a different plot than "you need to save the world from the Evil Dark Lord of Dark Darkness and Eternal Darkness". I mean, obviously every vaguely sensible person would be prepared to sacrifice quite a lot to prevent that guy from taking over. If they do not (due to inscrutable motives) they will quite rightly be seen as untrustworthy. Don't make betrayals massive and unexpected, and absolutely do not deny the heroes their entire victory because of betrayal, such a setting is random and mainly one-up-manship. Be satisfied with little betrayals, and if you aim for bigger ones, give warning. By the same token, make some NPCs fight unexpectedly hard for the heroes, give them victories enough to keep fighting.
Everyone says Leadership is so overpowered. I have not found it so. Sure, you can make a healer. Or a buffer. Big whoop. Fights last three rounds, leaving little time for buffing to be all that effective, and wands of CLW have superseded most combat healing. The fact of the matter is that the cohort will always be at least two levels weaker than the leader. Those two levels MATTER. And if the campaign goes mythic, Leadership is just a useless feat. The problem with Leadership is that it takes time. Then again, so do animal companions.
iTunes has a pretty awesome EULA. A number of years ago it was 75 pages of thick legalese.
What you also want to do is make sure there are thousands of references throughout the text. Defining terms differently in different parts of the agreement is good. Conditional phrases are good, because if you can deny their condition, the rest doesn't mean squat.
I saw an endless number of movies in late eighties and early nineties. Junk, quality, everything. And with some very good exceptions, it is formulaic, stupid and mostly useless. Cardboard characters, especially in stuff marketed to kids. Bad plots. Flimsy production values. Bad acting. Much of the reason we loved it was because there was no alternative. Animation was rare and bad quality.
Many movies today are far better. They challenge their own concepts, they deal with difficult subjects, they do not always provide easy answers. They have an awareness of their own genre and try to reach beyond the formulas. For animated movies, consider Up! And Wall-E. Both are brilliant, touching, smart, and interesting.
Yeah, I lived in the same lawn. You're all welcome to share it with me.
No, tone is generally a useless complaint. If the tone you're reading into an argument is unpleasant to you, then that is mostly a problem within the head of the reader; reading tone is HARD. But the real problem is mostly the crowd of layabouts taking it on themselves to tell one side (the not socially approved one) that they need to shape up their tone. It is merely a way to suck up to their perceived authorities, to silence disagreement, and to score points. Yes, much would be far better without tone trolls.
Another good one from my table. One of the party is a halfling sorcerer, who is rather disillusioned, but also one of the smartest of the bunch. In Shackled city, they are exploring a cave city, and he can see there is something in the water he just levitated over, back to the entrance where they have a guard they already beat but did not kill. The guard is tied up but barely conscious. The rest of the gang stands across the water, some distance away. He decides to solve the situation expediently. He gets the guard to his feet, pushes him into view of the others, shouts "NOOOO! YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO IT!!!", rushes toward the surprised guard, and pushes him off the shelf, down the painful slope of jagged stone, into the water, where he is promptly eaten by the thing in the water.
When the rest of the party reach him, they ask what happened. "It was horrible, the poor man... I couldn't stop him from jumping!!!" He then proceeded to roll a Bluff check and got 34. Everyone accepted it.
Joynt Jezebel wrote:
All right. We have a claim that I have made two demonstrably false claims on this thread: environment in authoritarian regimes, and Greenpeace clubbing seals. I will bring up the first now and save the second for later when I have more time.
My stance was: Authoritarian regimes are awful for the environment. Therefore, if you discuss things from an environmental standpoint, authoritarianism is a bad idea. Still, I have gotten some people claiming that China and Soviet were great for the environment n earlier threads, based on the state propaganda from those states. I claim that these people are naive, and I stand by that claim. This is what I have argued in this thread. So, what of what I wrote is "demonstrably false", Joynt? Do tell.
I will get back to you on Greenpeace clubbing seals, and we shall see if it is "just silly". Be sure to decide if you still stand by that viewpoint.
Indeed, that is a very tall order. Lucky how I never claimed all that, huh? It would be very interesting to see you support each of those points with quotes from me. Very interesting indeed.
In Sweden, we had TREE DEATH!!! in the eighties. We had massive numbers of trees just dying off, and the environmentalists of the time wasted no time connecting this to pollution, acid rain and so on. They staged protests where they blocked main throughfares in our cities, screaming "TREE MURDERERS!!!" to people driving cars, and so on.
The movement ended in time, as the people involved found other things to scream about (clubbed seals was big, and also paid for by Greenpeace). However, in the mid nineties, someone actually did a serious follow-up and found that some moron who was responsible for buying up massive numbers of plants from plant schools in Germany had forgotten to check the cold tolerance of the various plants they bought. Sweden has winters, most of the time anyway, and the trees couldn't cope.
Yeah, about that... we recently had the coldest May in ages. If that is pointed out to the AGWers, it's called cherry picking. Weather, not climate, you know? And yet... every time there is a warm month, the very same AGWers holler about it, and it's not cherry picking, somehow. If one month's temperatures is weather, not climate, how is it relevant to scream about one warm month?
Women too, if they want to?
BESM had an unofficial addition about sex, BBSW. It contained rules for playing in the hentaiverse. The most important rule was that the amount of sex people got was inversely proportional to the amount of sex they wanted. It certainly seems to be the truth from my admittedly little experience.
But if science is not by itself interested in the politics of the issue, and it is not, then again, why tolerate the IPCC? There are huge fields of science funded in other ways, via the universities. They could do their science in peace and don't make the public play for attention at all. Wouldn't that be a better alternative?
Lord Snow wrote:
Okay, question. Let us assume all climatologists are squeaky clean. It sounds as if the IPCC are most of the source of what is wrong with climate science. Why do the key scientists then not speak out against them?
What I said was that IF there is a distortion due to unreported results, it is pretty clear which direction that would take. I did not say anything about the existence of unreported results beyond that it is a rather common thing in science, common enough, as was pointed out above, to be called "the File Drawer problem".
If you wish to contend what I say, you therefore need to either attack my argument that conclusions could be drawn about the direction of the skew, or the existence of unreported results. Anything else is merely you sitting on that train of thought you describe and putting up straw men. You can do better than that, Rynjin.
Indeed, you won't know that. What could make it easier to determine the direction of the skew due to unreported results is to see if the researchers have a vested interest. And of course, they do. Given the scrutiny of the field by the sceptics, and given the importance to give the impression of "the science is settled", it's a simple matter of the politicos at the top of the dung heap getting the money to the various researchers, who in turn know enough not to rock the boat by publishing things that could be interpreted as "the science is NOT settled". Given this, we can comfortably and confidently say that if real results were not being reported, it would be those NOT supporting AGW. True, it COULD be a career move to debunk AGW - but believe that each and every one of those involved know the field would be completely dismantled if that were to happen.