|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
So, he has settled outside of court for probably very large amounts of money, not once but several times? I WONDER if that would attract other accusations. Nah, people couldn't be that opportunistic and dishonest, could they?
The simple truth is: Until a court decides, you have nothing, he has nothing, the women accusing him have nothing. Contributing to ruining someone's reputation with no basis is disgusting behaviour, even if all you do is smear crap on a messageboard about someone.
Let's just say this: "I never met that woman" is a pretty clear defense. It is also dangerous, because if the accuser can show that you did meet her in a situation where you should remember her, you were just caught lying. That he is willing to use that defense shows that he isn't really worried about that.
Nobody has an obligation to stand by anyone else in any situation. We choose to. If one of my loved ones were accused of something terrible, I would stand by them, as I would expect most to do if it happened to theirs. If someone is accused of something, I can understand if people suspend interaction until the courts have decided.
However, people giving themselves the right to publicly denounce someone as a criminal because of accusations? Disgusting. This is specifically the reason we have courts, so that people don't get judged by the nearest interested lynch mob or demagogue.
When the matter is decided, that is when you call someone a rapist.
Judge, then. How about jury and executioner, is that also up to you as you see fit, thejeff?
I don't know what to say, really... Except "damages".
It would be a better world without ambulance chasers, frivolous lawsuits, legal opportunists and such people, but they do exist, and wherever they can get money is where they will be.
Many daggers find a falling camel's back. Of course, it is quite possible he did do those things, but if so, the courts will have to decide, not the general public.
In a culture like the American one, there is good money to be made in accusing people of various crimes, particularly if they are wealthy, and if others have made similar accusations, it also helps. Thus, I don't really understand the idea that if thirty people have made accusations, it's a matter of how many are true accusations. It seems quite possible that none are. That said, I have read nothing about the Cosby cases.
The reason for rocket tag is that offense is really too good compared to defense in the current ruleset. When offense dominates, you get very short conflicts and wars, when defense dominates, you get the trench wars of WWI with neverending combat.
I would theorize one problem is that you really can't build your defensive abilities, i.e. hp, saves, AC, to the absurd levels you can build damage, save DCs, maneuvers, and so on. Even if you do, that leaves you wide open for any other sort of deviltry the enemy throws at you. Make a character with 57 AC, and you get hit by save-or-dies. Buff up your CMD and they blast you with area-of-effect spells. Attack has the initiative in this comparison.
Worse, even if you did add more defensive options, all you would be doing is extend the length of the battles. I believe many would feel this made things more boring, so it may not solve the things you think.
One thing I don't see people understanding when discussing evopsych here...
Offspring is the selection criterium for evolution, true.
That does in no way mean it is the direct point of our adaptations.
Sex brings offspring, this is generally true. Those who like sex have more of it, thus more offspring. This means that ANY somewhat reasonable behaviour that increases sexual frequency WILL BE SELECTED FOR - and not because that behaviour specifically gets us offspring.
So anytime someone does something that increases their attractiveness to others, it's done because it feels good to do so, which happens because it was selected for - but we don't make ourselves pretty or handsome because we want children, we do it because it gives us rewards in and of itself.
Why we do it != why evolution has made us want it.
If you doubt this: Why do the sperm banks have such a difficult time recruiting donors?
The opposite argument actually has something going for it. We do know that when violent movies are shown in an area, violent crime in the area drops significantly. We do know that in the US, sexual crime statistics have dropped with widespread introduction of internet connections in various states.
It's almost as if... and this is REALLY weird... people got stuff they wanted to do out of their system by reading about it or otherwise partaking of it in an immediate medial form such as movies.
The take-home message is that shutting down porn and violent media depictions might not be a very good idea at all...
Lucky thing nobody is talking about forcing you to see anything, huh? The truth is, the debate here has been going between one side claiming again and again that "there should be less of it" without a single shred of practical suggestions as to how this would be acheived, and the other pointing out that without such suggestions, all it is is a cry for general censorship and banning, supported by nothing at all, and certainly no reason to institute any kind of censorship or banning.
It's impressive, really. Decade after decade, the call for censorship has gone out about the latest types of media. Decade after decade, would-be censors have researched the hell out of the area in search of the holy grail: evidence that society becomes worse in a measurable way with porn/swearing/D&D/dancing/rock music/whatever. And, decade after decade, they draw a blank. But the truly sad part is, despite this, there is never a shortage of people who buy into the completely unscientific argumentation anyway.
The best idea is to get help for a simple phobia. It doesn't even have to cost too much to get it. If the phobia hurts your life, you will get a new life after treating it.
If that is not possible, sure, you could remove the <thing> from all RPGing and be done with it. However, it's not always a good thing. These things can be VERY disruptive. For example, I had to deal with a huge bunch of people who had a triskadekaphobic among them - she was afraid of the number 13. And everyone had adapted to her. They wrote 12+1 when they meant 13, and so on. That is... too far.
An amazing display of Perform (archery)!
Arrows and crossbow bolts are no fun when discussing penetration power. Bullets go fast, they kill effectively, but they do not really weigh much. As such, when hitting armor designed for them, they don't work well. The bullet deforms and splays out against the hard kevlar surface, causing a bruise and so on. An arrow weighs far more, and all that energy WILL go somewhere. When it hits the kevlar, it's an entirely different ballgame. I'd say penetration would be quite likely.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
I maintain that one was a saw.
Yeah. These days, it's waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and other namby pamby s*#*. In my days, we had iron maidens, racks, knee crushers, and tiny spiked cages. It's awful how an entire profession can lose sight of their pride that way.
The next poster bought the machine that goes BING! from a Monty Python prop sale, and is finding good use for it.
Thejeff: The problem of basing it off economic need is that it becomes an economic drain on the person in question. Take the hemophiliac. Should he be forced to spend every dollar he might ever get his hands on to survive, with the state only going in when he absolutely can't survive without help? Is it reasonable that a poorer hemophiliac should have to pay far less for the exact same treatment?
You know me so well, thejeff. Thank you for understanding. It's not quite the truth, however. Regarding how society should deal with different people having different needs, it is a complex issue whatever way you look at it. Thing is, BOTH views that "men should pay more for eating more food" and "you should pay the same since you're paying for a service" are quite defensible. Unless, of course, you take the approach that any different needs are the sole responsibility of the one with those needs. Hemophiliacs are an interesting case: The substances they require to survive are famously expensive, weighing in at millions per year. If you DO want the state to pay for that, you also have to decide on a point where it's not the state's business anymore, and further, you need a justification for the point chosen.
I am not quite as much of a Randian as some people here think I am. There are very legitimate areas the state should pay for, via taxes. I just find it strange that larger people get no sympathy from the liberal statists, when so many others do.
Well, Sweden never got much of the Marvel lines. Anyway, it shows that it's quite possible to have Peter Parker retire.
If lantern archons are what you use, it is quite enough to abstract them. At least until the AoE spells start flying or someone decides to whack the archons. Simply make the attacks and be done with it. For even more efficiency, colour code the dice so you can roll one d20 and the proper damage dice of a certain colour and do all of them at once.
Consider this: a restaurant's expenses for the customer are the costs for meat, veggies etc, salaries for the staff, energy and insurances, the location, ad campaigns, etc. Of all these, only the food costs more for a big eater. Should men then be forced to pay a significant markup for insurance, ad campaigns and so on?
Another way to view it is that the customer pays to get fed. Is it reasonable that someone bigger should pay more for the exact same service?
A level 16 wizard? Well, he can't use wishes or imprisonment (yet, unless via scrolls, of course), but generally, an 11 level disparity is not something you will manage to deal with. Consider this: He knows where you are, since you have his book. All he needs to do is pop in while invisible and summon a few beasts with Summon Monster VIII when you are sleeping. If he even cares enough about you. Now, the book: he is not going to fall for explosive runes on it. It has been compromised. He has other spellbooks. How you die is merely a matter of how sadistic he is and the quality of his imagination. When depends on how important you are. If, well, if really isn't an issue. And, as was noted: Kiiiiinda rooting for him here as well.
Complete Book of Elves had a neat little story about what revenge can mean, and why rings of regeneration are not your friend.
Mackenzie Kavanaugh wrote:
What would you consider a fair solution?
If we're debating physiology and sex (yes, sex, not gender), then how much should women pay for their restaurant meals? Given they have a lower average weight than men and, again on average, eat less than men? Is it fair that they have to pay the same price as a man for a portion that they don't need as much of? Would it be fair that men should pay more for the same service than women (getting fed)?
When you have buses with two-seat rows, the ugly method is to sit in the aisle seat with your bag in the window seat. To combat this effectively, all everyone has to do is target that bag seat for preference, even if the entire rest of the bus is empty. Always remember to say thanks when they move, too.
A good backstory is something that gives the GM a clue to what you want your character to be ABOUT. Most characters can be described in terms of conflicts, at least outside the gaming medium. Can a relatively powerless person succeed where the great heroes of the ages did not, merely due to his strength of character? Can a person deny the wanderlust within him and what price will he pay for not doing so? Can a wanderer accept his heritage and assume the mantle that is his? What will a prince do when given a chance to help his kingdom even if it will risk his soul? I assume all these should be relatively familiar.
But in RPGs, we get characters whose main defining trait is "I can do 1d12+567 damage when I power attack". I don't know about you, but to me it feels like a pretty big waste. I know many don't agree with me.
If you have a backstory to write, try to find a theme, a conflict. Is your character's focus on the conflict between wilderness and civilization? Is it about duty and doing good? Freedom and security? Trust and vulnerability? So long as you take care not to make that ALL he or she is, it's a good way to find a backstory that works to build off.