|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Adventurer means someone without a place in society. Someone who takes risks FAR beyond what sane people would be comfortable with. Worse, they NEED TO, because getting strange and extremely dangerous missions is the only way they can have a decent income. And of course, these missions are not necessarily matched to their capabilities. So they have very high rates of attrition.
In short, not something you do if you want a good life expectancy.
And thus: There needs to be a reason why the person chooses to be an adventurer that is more important to him/her than a good life expectancy. That is what makes them interesting.
And the point is... if you have done something like that... then you accept it. You turn yourself in. You suffer, and you know why you suffer. AND YOU DON'T EVEN TRY TO RATIONALIZE IT. Or else you do, claiming that "I did the morally right thing, the people on the other track were more in number blah blah blah blah blah blah blah greater good blah blah blah blah every good person would do the same blah blah blah blah!!!!" (monologuing is a time honoured tradition with people like you) and you're evil. Congratulations.
"For the greater good" is one of the absolutely most characteristic catchphrases of the Lawful Evil alignment. "Can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs" is another. Concepts like "net loss of life" is bread and butter to Lawful Evil. And when you question such a character, they will bring up stupid black and white situations like the tram problem.
See, Lawful is all about the group before the individual. And more specifically, the vaguely defined, not personally known group of, say, an organization, a city, or a country. Or a race.
And Evil, because these are the people who consider killing a way to improve the situation, even killing innocents. Not in self-defense, not even of declared enemies, but innocents. As soon as that becomes okay to you, you have that little E on your character sheet.
But it takes a while to get there. Sometimes, rarely, there is no way out that you can see. You may have to do awful things to save people. And you will be doing an evil act if you do. But as has repeatedly been stated, a single act does not force an alignment change. But once you start rationalizing it (the hallmark of Evil), spouting nonsense like "I did it for the greater good", you're done.
I have a lesser and a greater rod. I try to use the lesser one for empowering my quickened fireball. Does it work? No. It would be a level 7 spell since that is most disadvantageous to me.
Now I try my greater rod instead. Does that work? No. Since the greater rod can't handle a level 3 spell, that is more disadvantageous to me.
The recent FAQ
is unclear. There is an interpretation that it changes everything about metamagic according to what you write in the FAQ. Which would mean that metamagic rods operated off the new slot level of the spell with metamagic applied. As an example, a fireball (level 3) modified by the Quicken Spell feat (+4 levels) would require a greater rod of metamagic, empower, to empower, instead of a lesser rod as before. Is this what you intended? Or does the FAQ only apply to questions of concentration DCs, pearls of power, and the magus spell recall ability?
Second, the text in the FAQ starting with "The advantages of the..." to the end is unclear as to its purpose. Why was it included?
Third, if you intend for this FAQ to change the rules regarding metamagic feats that thoroughly, would not an errata be a better place to do it?
Blindsight can't see ethereal creatures, and incorporeal creatures are sort of undefined as to if they can be seen with blindsight. "either ineffective or partially effective" is not exactly obvious. Tremorsense should not work, but by RAW, you could make a case for it. It lets you see "anything that is in contact with the ground", which an incorporeal undead could be said to be.
Agreed. Jean hasn't been too many times through the death-door.
First Jean died in the shuttle. That should have been enough, but:
Madelyne Pryor was a clone who went on to die in Inferno. She was clearly her own character, though.
Rachel Summers, Jean and Scott's daughter, returned as one of the last survivors of Days of Future Past. She then claimed her mother's powers - which never seemed to be as impressive as they were with Jean. Still, Jean was another interesting character.
Scott grieved for Jean, and various stories referenced Jean and the Phoenix force, most notably the one where Mastermind convinced the X-men through an illusion that Madelyne was phoenix as well.
Jean then returned, and the retrofit was that the phoenix force had saved her by putting her in a cocoon under central park, IIRC. When that was done fixing her radiation damage, she came back.
...and was then killed by a massive stroke due to a parting shot from Magneto.
...but Jean's consciousness still remained as a facet of the phoenix force, and did manipulate things in certain ways afterward.
Madelyne also returned in some way, but I didn't read that.
All in all, since the phoenix means rebirth, should this be horrible?
Yes. The retrofit of "coccon under central park" was horrible. The rest is decently done.
Sucker Punch was bad. The uncut version was pretty damn good. It is amazing what a few extra minutes will do for a movie. Case in point was Terminator 2. I loved the movie, but I had only seen the theater version. I went to Blockbuster and rented it to watch with my ex- and I picked up the extended version. The extra 20 or so minutes made the movie even better.
The director's cut contains two extra scenes (maybe more, I just saw those two scenes on the net). Of the two, one is a show number which was glamorous but probably not necessary, the other is an absolutely central scene for the entire movie. Meeting the High Roller is where the heroine finally understands her own sexuality. During the entire film up to that point, others have forced her into acting for their pleasure. With him, she finally accepts her desire and acts on it. The mood goes from dread to triumph, the real emotional payoff of the entire movie. It explains so much of the other scenes that it's ridiculous. Given the thematics and symbols of the movie, I would speculate that what actually happens is that she meets him and finds him a decent person - which is corroborated by him shutting the asylum down. And of course, the moron censorship people see only sex=bad and CUT IT. It's a massive offense of the whole principle of censorship that leaves the movie mutilated.
According to me, amateur philosopher:
To seek something is not in itself a bad thing. It is the methods you use to get it that may make it bad. Nor is wanting something (anything, really) a bad thing, for the same reason. Other people, gods and whatever have jack all to do with what you want and what your goals are. If you break some eggs to get there, though, this changes.
That is the simple answer. The more complex answer is:
What you want and think does not only affect what you do. It also affects what you want and how you think. As has been stated, human instinct is brutal, harsh, wicked and sometimes monstrous. Some things you can think and seek will make it more difficult for you. So, even if an external morality/judgement/faith has no bearing on this, your future self and the situations you are brewing for it may. I am not saying you should not commit thoughtcrime, merely that you ought to be careful about the goals you set up and the thoughts you think because it can come back to hurt you.
It behooves us all to be a tiny bit careful.
See, Suckerpunch is one of the most intricate movies I have seen in a long time. It goes quickly, you need to be on your toes, things are not as simple as they may seem, symbolism abounds, and the themes explored are very much worthwhile ones. Goes to show how differently people understand it, and appreciate it. I loved it.
1. Seriously, man? A thousand sloths in my yard?
And now, the answers:
Communism is a religion. It has the same appeal to "goodness" (obedience), the same transcendent Vision (the Classless society), the same unbridled dogmatism and fragmentation, the same disdain for outsiders, the same moralism and suppression of sexuality, and the very same violent aggression toward competitors (other religions) just as soon as they become the dominant part in a society.
Communism being atheist is very old by now, and still just as useless.
Really? You're seriously arguing this? Heh.
Okay. We have two points. You can, as you say, draw a line through them. Then you can claim that whatever the two points measured you can now predict just by looking at that line.
But all you really have is two points. The claim that the line now corresponds to anything at all is merely your conjecture. You can extrapolate that line and say "Hey, in 20XX, Paizo will for certain publish another collected edition of an AP. Just look at the line!" Considering that they have specifically stated that we shouldn't read anything into the fact that they now publish that second collected edition, i.e. that the line you speak of has no relevance whatsoever, you'd be making a claim out of the blue, wouldn't you?
The young queen was sold by her family, who had mistreated her horribly, to marry the aging despot of Korvosa.
But the castle holds many secrets, and in the deep vault, she found him. He had been mighty, a powerful lord, and now he was imprisoned. She sensed the danger from his first word to her... But he set her soul on fire. It would be the deepest treachery to acknowledge her feelings. And yet, he is the first who has ever loved her. Theirs is a love that will shake the pillars of heaven.
Curse of the Crimson Throne is a romantic adventure path, following the growth of a young girl into a woman.
A central part of my point is that atheists as a rule don't think it's a bad thing that people believe something. Generally, atheists are very much for freedom of thought and so on. That is not the sticking point. The bad thing is organized religion, specifically the way it affects people who do not agree with religious morality laws and so on. See, there is no option to opt out when the religious people make laws for the whole society, with christian lobbying groups with outlandish influence pushing such laws, christian politicians approving them, and christian policemen and lawmen enforcing them.
And if christianity is a tool, then it behooves us all to think about what it's a tool for doing. Statistically, it is very clear that countries with little poverty are less religious. Is it out of the question that major religious organizations draw the conclusion from that?
It is. I had no idea atheists viewed Christianity as this monolithic entity trying to oppress them. The ones I know are quite content to live and let life as long as you don't try to ram your ideas down our throats. The truth is we are a very fractured bunch without a single voice.
I don't think it's a question of you even trying to do so. It just happens, as a consequence of your view that since religious feelings are good, and your ethics are good, then laws and policies that enforce it are great. What you miss is merely that they are great FOR YOU. Everyone else has to adapt, which feels pretty much like getting YOUR ideas rammed down our throats. And sure, there are many christian churches... but there are also both huge organizations like the RCC, and a tendency for christian groups to act the same way in major issues, whether due to dogma, tradition, a desire for consensus, or whatever. The divisions only run so deep with regards to political actions.
Ireland got new blasphemy laws not so long ago. California had Prop 8. Texas got harsh abortion laws. Bush shut down stem cell research. A serious number of countries have life from conception in their constitution, and the number is growing. Russia is actively persecuting homosexuals, largely run through their churches, as I understand it. Intelligent design, propriety censorship in school materials. And so on. Toothless? Not very. You are the 800 lbs gorilla in the room. You sit where you like. Everyone else adapts. Two billion christians means that it was ages since you were the underdogs.
Believe what you will, that is not the issue. You guys make laws, create policy, and so on. And so, we are subjected to your evaluation of every single new concept. We can't decide on our own values regarding reproduction, research, education, etc etc etc without having to run it past you guys. If you really hate something, such as abortion, we get subjected to your thoughts about it at our most vulnerable times. If we want the legal aspects of marrying, and our prospective is someone of our own sex, rest assured that you guys will weigh in. If we want freedom of expression, you are there talking to the elected politicians about blasphemy laws. And so on.
We are forced to adapt to and relate to your values, despite not sharing them. We are forced to go against our conscience, our values, and what we feel is important in life, because you feel that your values are the only healthy ones in existence and everyone would be happy if only those values were strictly enforced. Note that this is exactly the argument for protecting religious people from blasphemy and making laws against insulting someone's religious feelings.
This is also the reason most dedicated atheists consider organized religion to be dangerous.
Heh. The internet is here to stay. They wanted to get rid of it, they would have had to do it early nineties. Now? Heh. That is, however, not saying what the shape of it will be. Let us all be thankful it is still in somewhat decent shape.
Making a living making let's play movies, well, it always comes down to the same things: Charisma, a unique perspective, entertaining banter, comprehensive knowledge and understanding of your product, and a way to make money from it. Right now, however, it IS possible. Who knows in a few years.
Disregarding the misunderstandings inherent in the "belief in science is still belief", there is no need to throw bricks. We atheists get our share of bricks too, I am sure you are aware. But to answer your concern: As an atheist, I understand that my existence ends with death. And I am okay with that.