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

Sissyl's page

7,046 posts (7,845 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 7 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,265 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Which is, frankly, b~#@$!~ insane.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are three ways to get summon spells cast without a 1 round casting time (start in one round, finish the next), as far as I know: Sacred Summons, Academae Graduate and the Summoner class SLA. YOU WANT ONE OF THESE. Thing is, you can't be an effective summoner without actually getting monsters into play, and much like buffing the first rounds of combat, you lose too much of the average battle time by casting 1 round spells. This can be mitigated if you cast before the combat begins, but with a 1 round/level duration of the summon spells, that carries the risk of not getting to do anything with the monsters. The exception is the Summoner, who gets a much longer duration.

My suggestion, though, would still be a cleric, for Sacred Summons. You need the shorter casting time which only applies with a few creatures, but if you get it with Lantern Archons or something else neat, that's okay. You are in the battle immediately. What happens after that is more up to you and if you have longer casting times later in the battle, that is also okay.

As stated, a cleric can work wonders with many different strategies even while focusing on summoning.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

SUCK-el.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Dammit! Time to... "

*would remove her glasses if she had any and make a badassful pause*

"...cheese it."


5 people marked this as a favorite.

We call them teenage girls, today. Twilight did horrible things to humanity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

*whispers to blonde martial artist, a knight, a green-haired girl, a jungle child, a yeti, a maniac with a mask and chainsaw, a ninja, a blonde general woman, a doppleganger, a young girl with a large puffy hat, a bearded old man, a relic hunter and a white-haired guy, all collected in an airship, the whereabouts of Kefka*

*brings out the popcorn to watch*


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rysky: da da BUMM-bah da da BUMM bah!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Snow wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Like all other settings, a megadungeon becomes valid only by the vibrancy of its setting. This is acheived by theme, style, plots, NPCs, events and so on. A million rooms full of monsters doing nothing is indescribably boring. Divide it up into communities, nations, heck, even civilizations, make memorable NPCs, interesting and far-reaching plotlines, dastardly villains, interesting problems, differentiated "terrains" and so on, and you have something far better... though it doesn't fit the traditional (Undermountain etc) megadungeon concept very well anymore.
I believe what you describe is just a setting.

Precisely. :-)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Regarding costs of TTRPG as a hobby.

1. Consider the costs of parachuting as a hobby.
2. Be happy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, the trick to adding stuff to the cube is, of course, that eyes are food. It takes some serious plasmic manipulation, probably setting up the endoreticular matrix in certain zones to neutralize the acid. Luckily I have the feat for that now. No, I am not Mr Potato head. I am the six million gp cube!!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes... but the centidungeons are just depressing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

*points to the avatar*

MATT DAMON!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

GM says: Suddenly, hill giants!
GM means: If you think I should run the game instead of the usual GM, I'm gonna run it my way!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Death by being rolled over? :-) ...sorry.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

"Nothing goes over my head! My reflexes are too fast. I always catch it!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Then don't kill them, obviously. If they are a real person that associates with a group, it's murder. It is when they see themselves as merely a part of a group that they become valid targets.

Really, I am not serious. The mere problems involved in finding out what they are thinking makes it obviously unworkable.

However: There are so many ways to lose your individuality today. Everyone and their grandma wants you to give up your individuality, replacing it with obedience toward whatever. The idea of the well-oiled society where each person is merely a cog turning smoothly along with everyone else is surprisingly popular despite decades of suffering as consequences of the attempts that were made toward this in various places. If not nations, religions or organizations, it's mobs, riots and the like.

NOBODY should use these techniques to reach their goals. Humanity DOES answer to it, but the consequences are always terrible. And a response to it could be to only value the lives of these people as much as they value their own individuality. Consider it a thought experiment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Icelanders and food is a concept best not dwelt too deeply on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is no way to do that NOW, no. Give it time, thejeff. The point of technological advance has never been to do precisely what the next advance makes possible. The point of antibiotics wasn't to cure one specific infection. The point of the electric calculators of the eighties was never to sum up 2+4 or writing 5318008 upside down. When people asked Maxwell the point of his equations, he said "what is the point of a newborn child?" You are right, in the first phases, we would not be able to transport people off planet fast enough. That doesn't mean we never will, though, and it is quite possible that an increased standard of living in the poorer countries will solve this issue by itself. However, prevent that increase of standards because you want to conserve energy and it won't happen. As for it being a utopia, I much prefer working toward such a world to dooming us all to a "sustainable" dystopia. Oh, and the problem with the AGW alarms is that they always claim we will all be dead in exactly fifty years. In 2007, that was set to 2050. In 2010, it was instead 2060. In 2020, it is a fair bet it will be 2070.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ummm... We Westerners live lives of luxury. Compared to the dark ages, we live lives that kings would dream of. We have food. We have running, clean water. We have education, transportation, money, dental care, other health care, and when we die one day, there are cemetaries for our corpses. We usually don't have to fear for our lives. Our children usually grow up. And so on, and so forth.

All this requires energy. Energy today comes from oil and nuclear power and coal, and thus many people draw the conclusion that since these things are bad for the environment, we must all conserve energy to... Something. It is unclear where that line of thought goes, to me. It seems pretty much shot down that we will be able to conserve our way out of this particular conundrum. "No carbon dioxide pollution" is surprisingly a popular idea. Well, it would mean shutting down every single energy expenditure. Heating, city lights, transportation, electricity. We are indeed talking about a post-apocalypse here. The proponents say it is just a question of changing a few things, not our whole lives. This is the currently dominating idea for the future.

I say b+#&&~&@. Solve the problem instead. The universe is full of energy, so let's go get it. We live in a miserable little 1 G gravity well. For a species that can do what we can, it is time we used that ingenuity to expand further. Start colonies. Launch spaceships. Build space elevators. We won't be able to forever, so we need to go while we can. Not to mention the risks of having a little vertical "hello!" from a big rock one day. In such a scenario, there will be absolutely no lack of jobs.

Let me add the "seek a glorious future in the colonies" scenario to the list.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What would really save police lives is if they simply sent out drones with automatic weapons and gunned down all the protesters. Not one policeman would be remotely injured. See now why safety of police officers before taking any other consideration can be a very bad idea?

Policemen and soldiers (and others) have chosen to take jobs that can be quite risky. Nobody is forced to be one. It is, quite literally, part of the job. Certainly, give them what protective gear they NEED. It's ridiculous they would need armored cars, automatic rifles and sniper rifles to deal with a peaceful protest - if so, they are severely incompetent at their job.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Dammit. They are on to us sacrificing *stuff*. First the goats have to go due to hygiene regulations, and now the *stuff* too??? It's a cruel world.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Like all other settings, a megadungeon becomes valid only by the vibrancy of its setting. This is acheived by theme, style, plots, NPCs, events and so on. A million rooms full of monsters doing nothing is indescribably boring. Divide it up into communities, nations, heck, even civilizations, make memorable NPCs, interesting and far-reaching plotlines, dastardly villains, interesting problems, differentiated "terrains" and so on, and you have something far better... though it doesn't fit the traditional (Undermountain etc) megadungeon concept very well anymore.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem is that you are in essence sending them a message that they NEED this stuff by giving it to them. "Be afraid. Be very afraid. One day you will be shot by the Enemy, then you will need body armour. Or do you want your children to grow up with a single parent?" And so on. When wearing all this gear, of course, you take more risks, which actually make things worse. Not to mention it leads to an arms race. If the people who want to take out police officers need military weapons to do so, then military weapons is what they will get. When police departments have changed the rules in the other direction, such as having single officers patrolling, violence has gone down, both against others and against the police. Removing the stuff seems like a brilliant idea.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is more like saying "No, the system you're playing can't be a tabletop roleplaying game AND a fantasy game, it has to be one or the other!!!!11oneone" EVERY SINGLE TIME someone says they are playing a fantasy RPG. It is wrong, useless and done to death and beyond by now, Vod. If you still think it is a relevant thing to preach, I suggest you read up a bit on what democracy means.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Pro orc? Or maybe porc for short? :-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How about Jeans of Tightness? I have heard those go well with grease...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It has been established that the one article of clothing that never has magic is pants. Would magic pants change the functioning of grappling succubi?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Best wishes. Sometimes better safe than sorry.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sexual preferences do not, on their own, predicate any sort of behaviour, delusions or morality. It seems odd that so many today still think so. Heterosexual people do not automatically rape people of the opposite sex. Homosexuals do not automatically rape people of their own sex (this was a rather common viewpoint in the eighties...). Sexual preference is sexual preference, nothing more. Some people have it in them to rape others, but that is a result of a complex interplay of many factors of their personality, and as far as I have understood it, not tied to their sexual preferences.

That is why muddling the language of the field is dangerous and problematic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No. Sleeping with anybody is not anythingphilia. Sexual preferences are just that, sexual preferences. The acts MAY certainly coincide. However, someone attracted to corpses might well feel that a vampire leaves him/her uninterested.

On the topic of pedophilia: It is not all that uncommon that someone committing sexual acts with a child is an expression of pedophilia, but rather pathologic sadism. That person is looking for a victim, whether a child, an elderly, or someone weak or disabled that they can safely terrorize. The important part here is that such a person and a pedophile will likely react in different ways in future situations. Muddling the two is NOT a good idea.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Necrophilia is morally wrong because you're having sex with, well, a corpse. An object incapable of giving consent, but an object...so what really makes it wrong is that you're defiling a corpse. Messing with someone's stuff when they aren't around to object or say "Yeah, okay."

So...it depends on the undead in question. Having sex with a zombie is necrophilia. Having sex with a vampire is, well, having sex. Having sex with a lich or ghoul is likewise sex and not necrophilia per se...though pretty creepy nonetheless given what they generally look like.

A Druid should be penalized for having sex with a vampire only if you'd penalize them for masturbating or having non-procreative sex, since it's no less natural than, say, oral sex (which is actually common among orangutans...).

No. Again, you are talking about necrophiliac ACTS, not necrophilia, which is the sexual preference involved when someone is attracted to corpses.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah... Congrats! All of you... It isn't easy to rob a train, lemme tell you. Whazzat? Fantasy? Yeah, okay. I got a fantasy. It was about this lady, who... No? Durnit. Time for my ear flushing again. Good luck you guys.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am always ready to respect people for who they are. For what they choose to do, that most certainly depends on what it is they do. If someone is black, gay, of whatever sex and gender, is of whatever ethnicity, has whatever handicaps, I would be a qualified s~+*head to treat them poorly for it. If someone chooses to follow a certain religion, that is a completely different matter. Now, some are sensible and some are not among religious people, as with others. In a large organization, one person has no control over what others in it do, and it can be unfair to smear people because of thoroughly revolting actions of another. However, what you CAN do is mark your distance from it by being clear that you do not support it. That is what is expected of every member of an organization. If you do not, you ARE accepting the responsibility for what was done, even if just in a small way.

Not everyone does this. I have no idea if the anti-abortion fanatics did this after the bombings and murders against abortion clinics. The tendency is however quite clear. In religious organizations, this is by and large Not Done. A christian of a certain group does not in general mark their distance to what others of their group has done. It is seen as throwing someone under the bus. And yet, when the group is then held responsible in some way for it, it is always answered by "you can't judge the entire church because of what a few people did".

Which is not how it works.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Generally, all the outsiders have an alignment subtype, while nothing else on the tables does.

Alignment and summoning is complicated. First, your aura corresponds to your deity's alignment, and your cleric is within one step of that. So, NG deity means NG, CG and LG clerics, all with NG auras. So far so good.

Next, summoning spells get the alignment descriptors of the summoned creatures. This means clerics can't summon creatures with any sort of opposed alignment. I.e. A LG cleric can't summon CG creatures.

Finally, neutral creatures are fewer in number than others. Before the Champions of Balance book, there were no CN or LN creatures at all. Thus, you needed to choose. If you took LG or CG for your cleric summoner, you lost the other list, and the LN and CN lists you gained held no creatures. If you took NG, you could summon all the good creatures, but due to a relative lack of NG creatures, your Sacred summons feat covered very little ground for you. Which wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't the only reliable way of summoning faster than a 1 round casting time. That delay really is a problem, so you need to choose carefully. It isn't even a full round action, but 1 round, as in start round 1, finsh casting round 2, leaving you open to disrupted spellcasting etc.

Much of this got much better with the two Champions of... Books.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Auxmaulous wrote:
Hama wrote:
Also, I don't see protecting people from religious indoctrination until they are old enough to make the choice themselves as intolerance. I see it as my duty.

And you can raise your kids how you see fit in that regard. But it would be sad if said kid wanted some kind of faith experience and you took it upon yourself as your "duty" to "protect" them from it.

Just saying that maybe you should be careful that you don't become a variation of the thing you hate.

If a child of mine wanted to join Hare Krishna, the Moon sect, the Scientologists, or any number of other sects, I would want to protect them from that, indeed. Very much so. Why would this change because the sect is bigger and more influential, like the RCC? True, since they are bigger, they can afford to lose a few here and there, and they are somewhat more tolerant toward outsiders as a result, but the principles are the same: We have the right to decide what is moral and not, we see people as members or not members, we accept no challenge to the authority we do have from within or from without.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would count neither communism nor nazism as secular belief systems, to be honest. Both preach the subsumption of the self into the idea of the Collective, just like religions preach the subsumption of the self into God (which the Church conveniently tells you about). Communism has a very strong transcendent streak in its Classless Society utopia. Nazism spent its time doing massive rallies in an even more extreme form of the music, ritual and trance-focused actions than most churches today do. Brainwashing methods remain the same whatever the cause. It is a difficult case to make that they were secular.

If it is as you say, that bad people will use the tools available to spread their s$~~, we must be certain to deprive them of as many of those tools as we possibly can. And that certainly includes religion.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Aranna wrote:

So much intolerant atheism in here, sad.

More like intolerance if intolerance. And the source of that intolerance has been identified (correctly) as religious doctrine.

Nonsense, the source of that intolerance is intolerant people with crazy ideas, not religion. They may like to pretend it's something else but it's all on them.

I would VERY much like to see data on that. It is an interesting claim, but I am afraid it really has very little to do with reality. In every such case (the satanist scare we're discussing, remember?), the offered excuse for the perpetrator is the same: RELIGION. There are official religious leaders preaching this kind of behaviour. Ask a random religious person if doing this kind of thing is wrong, what answer do you think you're likely to get?

No, you don't get to make that claim unsubstantiated, Aranna.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes. I am an atheist. And I am intolerant of intolerant s*@* people do. And proud of it, I might add. The reason religion is a bad idea for children is that it justifies and motivates uncountable vile, intolerant acts, and children have not yet learned critical thinking. So... they need to be free of religious indoctrination. And since most religious people claim that religion (at least their religion) is such a massively positive force in everyone's lives, there really shouldn't be a problem with waiting to recruit people until they are adults, right?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Obviously evil. Yeah. Again, that is my point. As religious people are wont to do, she judged someone (which christians are not permitted to do), and stole (another no go according to most religions I know of), because she wanted to impose her religious tenets on someone who couldn't fight back. Sadly, it is precisely what I expect from most religious people. It is a pretty good argument for prohibiting religious ceremonies and teachings to people not of the age of maturity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If anyone were to take my stuff to burn it for religious reasons, and this was someone I cared about, I would give them one chance to make full restitution twice over and a written and verbal apology before witnesses, along with written promises it would never happen again. I would also take the extra money and donate that to an atheist organization. Otherwise it would become a police matter with no further questions asked. Theft is bad, and doing it for religious reasons needs to be stamped out hard.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Necrophilia is the attraction to dead bodies. Having sex with a dead body is a necrophiliac act. Specifically, if someone has sex with a dead body, for whatever reason, it still doesn't mean necessarily that the person is a necrophile. That only happens if they are attracted to it. It may sound like splitting hairs, and I agree it is unlikely that anyone would, but there is a distinction and it is important to make.

A mindless undead is an object. As stated in the Book of Erotic Fantasy, having sex with a skeleton or zombie is usually masturbation. Other undead may be capable of giving consent. The classic example is the vampire.

It may be that someone desires a sexual partner specifically because it is undead, but a dead body would do nothing for him or her. In that case, I would call the sexual preference anecrophilia. Someone having sex with a vampire for some other reason than its undeadness (she's hot, he used to be my husband, whatever) could be neither a necrophile or an anecrophile.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Donkeyfolk ftw!!! And platypusfolk!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, I find it interesting that Paizo's early production post Dragon/Dungeon is rather sexed up/adult, witness various Seoni pics from the era and Hook Mountain Massacre, but since then has been toned down rather sharply. I can appreciate the need to sell better by any means necessary, but it does cast later views and policies in a slightly different light to my eyes.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Unproductive? Well, she probably thought several times before doing such a thing again.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Why all these arguments about realistic armour? Truth is, most realistic armour looked like crap. If you wanted a realistic depiction of people adventuring and surviving at it, you would get something like Warhammer levels of massive armour. You would grasp for EVERY SINGLE LITTLE POINT of advantage, always, and how it looks be damned. Not to mention, even these people would be scarred everywhere to beyond recognition. Let's just say it would not be a good thing to see realistic images of adventurers. Eurh. I am quite pleased that Paizo's art doesn't even try to depict realistic armour in most cases, but unapologetically stick with fantasy armour.

For many, part of the fantasy we're talking about is the fantasy of looking good, of being desirable, of being a sexual agent AND/OR object. Let's not pretend otherwise. And of course, there should be eye candy for both sexes. As for Seoni, there are rather a lot of images of her in action/power poses.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

MATT DAMON!!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I thought we had established that Florida was zombie land now?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, Lord Snow, there is a very important difference between the concepts of explanation and excuse. Explanations merely tell us why. Excuses are when those explanations are seen to take away responsibility for someone's actions.

Without the treaty of Versailles, it is quite likely there wouldn't have been a WWII. The treaty is an explanation, but never an excuse.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Seriously, the sending spell is really awesome! You don't need anything more for long-range communication. You see, all that you need to do is


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Politician.

1 to 50 of 1,265 << 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.